supreme court. one thing is life tenure for the court judges. they all of either a term of years or in age limit and so scholars and politicians started to scratch their heads and say the life tenure on the supreme court really most serves the interest of the public. for one thing, if the had a term of years or age limit i think we wouldn't have -- it would certainly lower the temperature of the confirmation battles because you knew you wouldn't be investing in somebody would be there for 30 or 35 years long, long of lasting not only the president july administration, but the era in which the nomination occurred and things change a lot from one decade to another in terms of what's important and how we see things. i just bring this to your attention to the delight not have heard of it because it is still in the legal literature but it's interesting to see and try to think a little bit outside of the box do we have the best of all systems and the best of all possible worlds command of course the answer is not necessarily. it can always be more per

this is the year the supreme court goes to the dogs. the court had no fewer than two cases in the application of the fourth amendment. these are both cases of oral argument on halloween. the court will have a fourth amendment day on halloween with these two cases including dogs nenest. the state of florida is the petitioner and both of the cases that the court will hear. of the two k nine cases, i think the case that is probably a greater interest is the case of florida versus jardine which is whether the dog can use a canine to sniff the outer up a callous. this is not in order to determine whether there is contraband in the house. it really involved the intersection of two basic fourth amendment principles. ordinarily does not constitute a search and therefore does not require additional level of individualized suspicion. the supreme court has so held this. if a job comes up to you as you are waiting for your luggage from a domestic flight, a docking come up to you with out more. the contraband is found, you will be subject. the questi

supreme court. the author exam of the recent addition of the four justices in the past five years and how it has affected the court's decisions on the numerous cases including its recent ruling on health care. it's about an hour. [applause] thank you. hello, everybody. so excited to be here in philadelphia. i know that is the usual pandering that goes on by the speakers but in my case it happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad was at the high school. [applause] depending has just begun. curtis institute. i don't know if we have any more here and he went to temple as well and he taught me that the streets were paved and i have enjoyed my visit ever since. i'm really happy to be talking about the oath. italy cannot today's ago. so far, so good. it's exciting. you work on these books and people like to lead them. it's exciting to the answer, but the start by asking the first question that i know is on your mind, which is who is your favorite justice? [laughter] it's not elena t

they both come from the florida supreme court. so the state of florida is the petitioner in both of the cases the court is going to hear. of those two canine cases the cases probably of greater interest in florida versus jardine, which involves the question of whether the police can use a dog to sniff the exterior of a house. i believe it is literally sniffing the front door of the house of mrs. dunn of course to determine whether or not there is contraband in the house. it's kind of an interesting case because it involves the intersection of two basic principles. it is pretty well settled that a dog sniff ordinarily does not constitute a search and thereby -- therefore does not require any additional level of individualized suspicion and a series of cases involving searches in public places, and supreme court is still held. so with a dark and fed to you as you're waiting for your luggage and make it simpler for fourth amendment purposes as you wait for your luggage from the domestic fight, a dog can come up to you and smith era lu

my question generally is about national security cases in the supreme court. until 2008, a lot of challenges reached the court. since then, there have not been any -- many, and the only case they took was the clapper case, in which it looks as though they will reverse a lower-court decision that went in favor of the plaintiffs. i wonder if anyone wants to comment as to why the court seems more reluctant to take cases than they were previously, and it doesn't have something to do with liberals on the court having greater faith in the obama id administration's handling of foreign policy. >> clearly we have handled all of our foreign policy problems. >> without some detail on detainee's and over a fair judges,f lower court's the supreme court has showed no willingness to way back into that, and the only case, as you mentioned, has the clapper case, which involves a question about whether particular individuals have standing to challenge procedures mandated by the fisa amendment. it is an interesting case, but not a big ticket case. i suppose one could infer from t

i am interested in the second case went to the supreme court. there were nine justices who were obviously shocked, that the government was making. for 20 years preceding that, every single lower court as damien pointed out avoided it and all arms of the federal government have no problems at all with changes themselves. there is no limitation on what we can do in this situation and i am wondering what you think about how you can change the culture that accepts that when finally presented. this is wrong. understand what i am saying? >> there may have been a follow the leader problem in that the first case in this issue in the court of appeals from the seventh circuit in the early 1990s, i suspect in that case if it had gone against the epa it might have -- we might have seen simply a slip up of the president. i think the court decided we don't want to create circuits bullets and we are going to buy into epa's argument that if you allow judicial review it will hamper our ability to administer the clean water act. that argument had more force in the

the supreme court granted that.connor is gone, justice kennedy has dissented every affirmative action case but in 2003. >> he descended on all of them upholding the program. >> but in 2003 he wrote to he could accept the justice notion going back university could consider race on one factor but before we approve with the ignition scheme we should seriously force universities to consider race base day shom sorry race neutral alternatives. that is where we are now. so to break a significant number of minority students trying to go further to consider race. so to talk to people about the case overwhelmingly those students come in. nine at of 10. and 36% of those coming and were hispanic or black. is so they we're doing better under the automatic review policy. i don't know what the court will do but watch justice kennedy if they say something the university cannot have race-based affirmative action plan if race neutral could work. you could write the opinion texas sold the case. they have only had this much success but

convinced there was discrimination during the trial the supreme court demanded that the death sentence be reexamined but the techs in court did not see eye to eye with this decision had refused to admit that miller had been a victim of racist practice he was to be executed. texan justice supported by a strong conservative public opinion and by very active victim associations refuses reexamination of the case. i believe as we practice criminal justice in texas we do a better job of it than any other state in america. one we execute our convicted capital murder we have the highest execution rate in america we're not afraid to do it we do it well we tolerate a lot in texas you can be anything you want in this state but be prepared to pay the consequences of your actions. and i think that the rest of the country should take note of all of that so in that respect i believe texas is the most progressive state in america. how can such confidence be understood when suspicions of judiciary errors increased in texas. and universities and for those who defend human rights the miller case has beco

i'm wondering from your experience jeffrey, what are the cases that are on the supreme court's docket that progressives should be most worried about how the court will rule in the next year or so? what do you think is coming up? >> two of them, maybe three. certainly next year, they are going to look at the future of affirmative action. the crowning achievement of justice sandra day o'connor's career was the 2000 case out of your state of michigan, the grudder case that said that universities may use race in admissions to graduate school. there is a case that directly challenges the grudder case based on what i've seen, it's very likely that the supreme court will overturn grudder and prohibit any sort of affirmative action in admissions. that's one. the other is the future of the voting rights act. section five of the voting rights act says that certain states, most of them in the south, have to get any changes in their voting system precleared by the justice department. that's one of the reasons why governor scott attempts to restrict voting failed because the justice department cha

supreme court. it's one you'll not want to miss -- and not because it opens with an article jointly written by me and the historian bernard weisberger. our mission was simply to remind the reader of what's obvious. that because of the partisan gridlock paralyzing both president and congress, more than ever the court has become the most powerful branch of government, and the center of a controversy which may shape the fate of democracy for generations to come. with me to talk about this is "the nation" magazine's editor and publisher katrina vanden heuvel. she's a frequent presence on the talk news shows and a familiar byline in major publications. she has been one of those out in front, calling the president to task for orphaning his values and promises, as can be seen in her most recent book, "the change i believe in: fighting for progress in the age of obama." the prolific jamie raskin also joins us. one of the country's leading scholars on constitutional law, he teaches at american university and

he's the author turning right the making of the rehnquist supreme court which covered the efforts of the reagan and first bush administration to make the high court and he read the monthly column for the aba journal and offered regular commentary on the top of the nation. david, who for good deal was not a lawyer, grew up in the pittsburgh area and holds degrees from unc and northwestern. we will start with kannon. >> well, steve reed you, ilya. it's great to be here at cato to talk about the upcoming supreme court, and i guess we have already had one mystery solved because now we know why ilya for this very fetching suit today. he's trying to float on the pages of gq. [laughter] i don't think i have much of a shot at that because evidently you're sood has to be visible from outer space in order to be a contender. [laughter] in any event come here i was, thinking that i was somehow privileged to be asked to write the preview for the supreme court review this year when in fact i was simply asked because i happened to be ilya's boss. [laughter] in any event, notwithstanding that, it was

or is there still time to take action and save our planet and americans approval rating of the supreme court is approaching an all time low and a big part of that has to do with justice antonin scalia is the time we impeached the ethically challenged and politically motivated associate justice and restored faith in the highest court in the land. in the us the rest of the news earlier today the united states green party and the european green parliamentarians hosted the first ever global green party video conference the purpose of the event was to discuss those issues that affect both americans and europeans like the global economic crisis immigrant rights and climate change one campaign here in the united states is taking these issues very seriously is dr jill stein the green party's nominee for president of the united states here is the. latest national t.v. ad coming from a stein campaign. a green party president means an end to unemployment to foreclosures to student debt to climate change and an end to corporate rule we're not talking spare change we need a revolution. that's what we des

supreme court precedents render employer vicariously liable under title vii were pervasive versus fearharassment by supervisor based on race, gender or other protected characteristics. as a conflict among federal courts of appeals about who is the supervisor to the justices have agreed to review the second circuit 2011 decision in advance to clarify the scope of employer liability full text. >> briefly, stewart, justice kagan taking part and it's not doesn't matter? >> she's not. it matters cosmetically. there's five votes to reverse and having centers wouldn't make much difference as opposed to three centers. i can imagine a few are just as kennedy come you might think, is it a little unseemly to be doing something this big without a full-court. the manchester state the obvious that there's a four-quart tybee university wins? >> yes, the reason justice kagan is refused, by the way she presided over an amicus brief at the justice department when she was solicitor general supporting university of texas. >> okay, thank you at our next analyst no supreme court from the inside having been

or liberal majority or whatever its configuration is i don't see the supreme court backing down from these fundamental constitutional principles and i don't expect they will enter a saying and of course this is a very significant case with a very serious ramifications carl do you think that it is getting enough attention in the media. i don't think so i must say i mean. we've been heartened r.t.l. has been reporting on this from the beginning there are a few radio stations around the country that i could name there's a gentleman named peter collins who has a radio show in san francisco who has reported on this from the beginning there are a few columnists but it really shows the very very narrow scope of debate in this country that for example the major news outlets a.b.c. c.b.s. . n.b.c. nothing on this fox news nothing on it and then m s n b c nothing on it because this issue doesn't fit into their preconceived notions of there's a there's a fight between a democrat and a republican for the presidency and all they care about is their. hackneyed storyline that well there is a libera

but there's the very likelihood of the defense of marriage act coming before the supreme court. utional. we may also get proposition 8, which has been struck down in california coming before the supreme court as well. we have possibility of huge gay marriage judicial issues as well. >> bara? >> we want to make sure that voters know they need to register to vote and registration deadlines are going to start closing this ten states on october 6th. then the 7th, 8th. 9th through october 16th. people need to get serious right now and make sure that you're registered to vote. if you have any questions call the lexapro tex hotline. that's 866-687-8683. >> we'll put that up on our website. what you should know is that the conventional wisdom that no one pays attention to the bottom of the presidential ticket is a little overstated. this week, we saw some interesting evidence that was actually featured on your show yesterday that seniors are beginning to move dramatically toward obama. there's a possibility that this is because of ryan in a whole bunch of ways and obama has never been ab

the supreme court upheld the provision in june. a federal appeals court has blocked a minnesota law that requires corporations to disclose the money they spend on political campaigns. the measure forces companies to set up and keep track of a political fund if they spend more than $100 a year on political activities. but on wednesday, the eighth u.s. circuit court of appeals in st. louis ruled in a 6 to 5 decision that all law likely violates the supreme court's citizens united ruling allowing unlimited spending to influence elections. and those are some of the headlines. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. from charlotte, north carolina, this is "democracy now!" we are breaking with convention: war, peace, and the presidency. "democracy now!" special daily to our coverage from the democratic national convention inside and out. speakers on the second night of the democratic national convention wednesday included massachusetts senate candidate elizabeth warren and former president bi

citizens united draws on ideas that clarence thomas brought to the supreme court. the original list, whatever you think about them .. they have ideas that they have pushed in the public, in the academy, in court, and liberals have not been as successful, and i think the irony as i point out there is they are pushing the idea the constitution is dead, but there by they have proved just how much it lives. >> the oath, the obama white house and the supreme court, jeffrey tubin best selling author of the nine, back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: karen elliott house is here and pulitzer prize winning journalist from a publisher the wall street journal many years she has observed the culture and politics of saudi arabia and the entire region, her new book takes us inside the country for a look at the many fowrseses forces that shapes its place in the fast changing arab world, it is called "on saudi arabia" and i am pleased to have her on this program. we have been friend for, friends for many, many, many years, and in the beginning when i first not into journalism an

supreme court. >> u.s. supreme court -- wait until it happens. >> right, right. >> and then i'll consult with you, as well, yeah. >> and you can swab it, weigh it in and just hang out there. >> okay, as long as the weather is good. all right, thank you, gentlemen, always good to see you, always a great treat. appreciate it. >>> the legal guys are here every saturday, noon eastern, to give us their take on the most intriguing legal cases of the day. >>> a suburban atlanta couple charged with unspeakable crimes. it is a bizarre story that you just have to see to believe. >>> i'm interesting in neuro law, it is where science is going, you translate it into social policy, how we actually are running the system here. i'm david eagleman, and i'm a neuroscience, at some point there will be a tech shooting or the aurora theater shooting. and we'll find that the suspect had a brain tumor, at some point that will happen. and then society is going to have to deal with this very difficult question about this relationsh

what does montana's experience tell us about the supreme court? like to contrast it to voter i.d. case in court decided in 2008, the crawford case. both citizens united and crawford involve fundamental rights. the right to speak and the right to vote. either right is absolute, however. supporters of campaign finance regulation defended is preventing political corruption. supporters of voter identification is preventing voter fraud. these are widely and deeply contested. either corruption or fraud is sufficiently definite problem to me to solution. states have developed different answers. to some, corporate campaign license or corporations. two others, these laws preserve integrity of the democratic process to the simple filing of a two-page form. some identification month and modern-day poll taxes. two others, these laws preserve the democratic process by requiring filing of a simple two-page form. reasonably book and do disagree about the open corruption and fraud in outlook or a politics in the appropriate remedies, if any. given what should a co

my guest tonight is here to talk about obama's relationship with the supreme court. it's kind of a he said; she said; she said; she said; he said; he said; he said nothing. please welcome jeffrey toobin. (cheers and applause) jeffrey, good to see you again. >> great to be here. >> stephen: this is your sixth trip to "the colbert report." fair warning: this is your last appearance before you hit the guest pay wall. last freebie so let's make it good. >> stephen: . >> i'll do my best. >> stephen: you write for the "new yorker," you're a senior legal analyst for cnn and you've got a new book called "the oath: the obama white house and the supreme court." last time you were here you said the supreme court was definitely going to rule against obamacare, it was a disaster for obama. you lied to me. (laughter) it broke my heart! a heart that is now covered by obamacare! (laughter) how did you get it so wrong? >> i just-- over-- i paid too much attention to the oral argument and not enough to what i think john roberts-- i now know was thinking about this case. >> stephen: ok