supreme court. so he's really a 19th century guy. he was in the civil war. and he's been at the supreme court a long time. one of the remarkable things that happens in 1919 is though he's been around a long time, he's still changing his mind, he's still coming up with new ideas. >> mr. schenck is so much lost to history that we were not able to find a photograph of him. despite trying every possible resource. so we'll have to imagine what he looked like in 1919 as this case was coming to the supreme court tonight. it all centers around the espionage act, which was passed in 1917. what did the espionage act do? >> the espionage act was a response to real concerns in kind of the beginning of the red scare, at the beginning of world war i, that there was going to be a real disruption in the united states' ability to mobilize the military. and so the espionage act is later augmented by the sedition act, which got even tougher, basically made it illegal to do things that might interfere with the mobiliza

they are confident the supreme court will side with the president, the white house saying that the supreme court and congress have made it clear that the federal government has priorities enact be r.ing immigration laws. obviously that is something republicans vehemently disagree with. >> is there enough time now remaining in the president's term to see this through fruition should the administration continue through the courts and the supreme court as you say take it up? >> again, that is the hope, that before the elections next november and before president obama leaves office on january 20, 2017, that the supreme court will take this up, will hear it and of course the hope in the white house and among pro opponents of the president's immigration reform plan and these very controversial executive actions is that the court will rule in their favor and let these two measures go forward. >> mike, thank you very much. >>> the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is speaking before the jewish federation of north america, their general assembly taking place. netanyahu is expected to talk

supreme court.say, 99 out of 100, they get to decide their own cases and they pick from some 7000 different petitions. the judiciary was smaller than the number of cases was smaller and the number of times that the , supreme court was required to hear a case by congress was much higher. in the latter part of the century the justices got pretty good at convincing congress that they should have the ability to choose, rather than have new cases foisted upon them. it was much easier in a major constitutional challenge like this to make your way into the supreme court. host: we will learn a lot more detail about the court itself and how those cases -- one thing to notice by the time he got the court, it was 1919 where were we in the world by that point? beverly: one of the sort of surprising things to many americans is by june of 1917 the draft is up. but the united states is not actually engaged in a significant way in the war as a military enterprise, until the middle of 1918. and then all of a sudden

i believe that is ruled 36 of the georgia supreme court. i believe the statute would trump -- >> from georgia law -- does it -- does itis case govern this case? it states that habeas is taken out of appeals and they are discretionary. court could that a have discretionary view but could provide by rule that in the exercise of discretion, we will grant any of these unless it is patently wrong. maybe that is what has happened here. toyou use your discretion enact a role that says you will ,ake cases of a certain court does the taking of those cases still remain discretionary? it is a nice question? i think it does remain discretionary if they find it has arguable merit. you have just decided you will uniformly argue your discretion in a certain way. >> maybe i am misunderstanding. you are saying there is no such uniformed determination. that they will exercise their discretion in a certain way. they are insistent on their discretion being discretionary. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. multitudepplies to a of cases. >> i'm sorry.

how infected the court case get to the supreme court? was the mechanism? peter: after he was convicted, there was an appeal. the appeal went to the ninth circuit court of appeals, which did not decide the case, it just send it on to the supreme court. the court had already decided in 1943, in the previous cases, but those involved the curfew. the curfew was considered much less of a burden on japanese-americans, after all, it only said you had to be in your home between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. the interment itself, the exclusion order, was the issue before the court. now, inry clear, hindsight, that the court was misled. but the point, i think that is even more important, is that it was clear at the time, there were government officials, , andding attorney general several of the justice department lawyers who were involved in these cases who said no, we can't do this. it violates the constitution. in what became, i think, one of the great tragedies of american law, the government's highest-ranking lawyer, the solicitor general of the united states, got up b

then, the supreme court oral argument. that is followed by a panel on isis recruitment and combating extremism. >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states. >> landmark cases, c-span's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> we will hear arguments, roe versus wade. >> quite often, many of their most famous decisions, there were things that were 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, sticking together because they believe in the rule of law. susan: good evening and welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's landmark cases. tonight we will be examining a 1944 piece before the supreme court. it is the story of korematsu versus the united states. fred korematsu was the japanese-american who challen

and so it goes to the state supreme court. there's no difference in our situation here. >> you're saying in that case and other cases, in that situation we none the the less addressed reasoning of the intermediate court? >> you did in sirius versus upton case out of georgia in 2010. that was certiori supreme court of justice came up in our case. >> is there an argument the petition for certiori could go to supreme court, a review could have been had, which sounds like georgia supreme court. on the other hand justice scalia said hadn't really directed their attention to the issue. i'm not sure to me it's an option to go to the georgia tractor-trailer -- trial court or is that correct? >> followed in brady versus north carolina, 2015 case this year, in which once again there was intermediate court decision denied by north carolina supreme court. i can remember back to 1960, thompson versus louisville where certiori was to police court in louisville, kentucky. no court in kentucky could take the case because the fine was less than

it sounds like the georgia supreme court. the superior court said on page 175 of the joint appendix that the issue of the batson violation was not reviewable based on the docket of res judicata. it later said, and this was page 192 of the joint appendix, that it will review the batson complain that -- batson claim, -- if you put those two together, you could argue that the superior court decided only the 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? >> the state does not argue that and the reason for that is because the court said that the court what address step three of batson and said foster's batson claim was without merit. >> is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not the petitioner has shown a change sufficient to --is that the state law question? >> here, -- >> if it is a state law question, then what you have to argue? >> in order to decide it, it is like the case in oklahoma where the court, the oklah

i was absolutely blown away. >> supreme court. >> the supreme court of the united states.d, you're kidding me, and without batting an eye, taking a breath, he said, it's the only way this can end. >> punching heavyweight for the democrats was former secretary of state warren christopher. >> we're proceeding in accordance with the constitution of laws and we'll continue to do so. >> both statesmen, both diplomats, but hardly alike. >> you never met anybody who had more respect, but he was an old-fashioned by the book lawyer. jim baker was that plus, a down in the pit political hand-to-hand combat fighter. >> look, when i heard jim baker was going to be involved for the other side, i said this is a guy that comes armed on both sides. i mean, he carries two holsters and has other hidden weapons. >> baker and christopher had only one face-to-face meeting at the governor's inn in tallahassee where it became very clear they were fighting different wars. >> secretary christopher laid out a number of ideas about how the uncertainty in florida might be resolved and secretary baker

peter: it goes back to the supreme court in 1943. what are the limits of the government's powers under the fortitution to issue orders national security? the courts have been very reluctant to intrude upon the power. they have judicial deference. order,president gives an and says this is in support of my powers, the courts are reluctant to say that you have gone too far. you are going to hear about a of where the president was found to gone too far, with the steel seizure's case. but during world war ii there was no real check on the president's power. theonly check was conscience of the justices of the supreme court. steve: korematsu's greatest asian-american i can think of. it really has implications for the united states versus edward snowden. the absence of judicial review is a very confusing precedent. the war on drugs, and the war on terror. as long as you use the word war, the government has all the power. nobody has ever mentioned the lost property rights of 120,000 japanese-americans. it is called eminent domain. what the bri

getting to the supreme court is only really the first step. the most important step is how the court decides the case and what the lasting consequences of that are going to be. i don't think justice scalia was endorsing the internment or the korematsu decision. in fact he was deploring it. but what he was saying is that we're kidding ourselves if we think this can't happen again or that the courts are going to step in and say, no, you can't do it. because the court in the end is swayed by factors other than the text of the constitution. they're swayed by public pressure, by patriotism, personal loyalty, the presidents who appointed them to judicial philosophies. and all of those things come together in a crucible of intention disagreement and debate over what are we going to do as a society to protect ourselves. and also to protect our citizens. >> so as you heard, our next week's case will be one in which the court stood up to a president, harry true man during the korean war. if you're interested in these cases i wanted to tell you about this

particularly for the supreme court and circuit court judges. not so much for district court judges. >> is this a good or bad thing for the country? grassley: bad. >> why? grassley: this is bad for the country. because i think that if you go 200 years without the selection of judges and approval by the supreme court, i mean approval by the congress being so political, we got along pretty good for those 200 years. tags and other question about the selection of supreme court justices, throughout history it has not always been necessary for supreme court justices to be lawyers. you yourself are not a lawyer. unusual but not exclusive. these days, is it absolutely necessary for a supreme court justice to be a lawyer? sen. grassley: i think so. i know the law does not require it, i think only once in our history a justice from lee county, iowa, was appointed by lincoln or someone succeeding lincoln, i don't know what year that person served, but i guess they eventually ended up being considered lawyers by how lawyers were created in those days, readi

the supreme court upheld the state court decision and tear is what blocks it. the sixth amendment stands as a constant admonition that the constitutional safeguards that provides a loss justice will not still be done. it embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skills to protect themselves when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty. we are in the prosecution is presented by experienced counsel. that which is simple orderly and necessary to the lawyer, the untrained layman me at pier intricate complex and mysterious. that was 1942. over the next 20 years every time a sixth amendment case on representation by a lawyer came before the court, this is what like bank blows goats. it was there. they kept having to do it in gradually what happened was every single case was overturned on a technicality because in the succeeding case they said of course he would have to have a lawyer if it was a complex case, or if the person lacked the mental capacity to be able to un

opportunity to be involved in high-profile litigation representing state governments in the state supreme courts and federal courts of appeal and the court of the united states opportunities they wouldn't get as the juniors that the law firm. we had to pay them a salary that would be competitive to attract them but we could pay them far less than it would cause to higher big law firms to represent us in those cases particularly before the supreme court. we learned that model from some other states. that's how ten crews started in many ways and in public service. i think it's been a highly successful model and it's not surprising that more states are doing it. >> like i said it wasn't really active in this space mostly doing habeas corpus, so we are setup so that there is a lawyer that represents the natural resources and the individual lawyers that may represent the agencies affected by this but we need a dedicated public practice and we needed someone that is going to be a book to take everything that's going on in the office and anything that's hard and have an eye towards if we end up in the

i would not ascribe to the supreme court that kind of power at that time. it was pretty late in the day, the politics of the situation that jeff describe are really important. but it nevertheless is an important indication from the court. and an indication from the court to which there was no great outcry in the public thus suggesting that by this time, there had been a consensus reached that south would do what the south would do. in terms of race relations. >> so i need to fast forward to 1940s america where things are actually beginning to move in a more positive direction. notably, the affect of the war and the contributions that african-americans made during the war in 1947. there was the desegregation of the armed forces in the sports world. jackie robinson integrated baseball in 1947. how are things beginning to shift in the late 1940s? >> well, you put your finger on something really important. and that is the impact of the war. in terms of african-americans serving in the war, but then, coming home to this country and being mistreated, including bec

it is a dialogue that takes place between the justices and the members of the supreme court. let me quote ruth cater ginsburg. methane better to lead the author of the majority opinion. illustration. the case decided by the court 1996 that the denial of the commission violated the equal protection in clause. the final draft released to the public was better. amasa hard to read that way that would do the best i can [laughter] >> and at least one dozen more drafts of eggs to the dissent now we go to justice scalia who is the ginsberg good friend and occasional nemesis the fact never comes to public light it often causes the majority to eliminate the more vulnerable assertions and of the gold ruble. assigning field in for the court to give some assurance i have written it will that i can respond satisfactorily in my judgment to the descent of a separate concurrence it is a higher percentage of the worst opinion of the court and the reasoning is unanimous. good judges are talking to one another and sometimes they change their mind. plan had an experience she said of writing a diss

but last year the supreme court decided batson v. kentucky and we asked the court not to let that happen in this case. now, of course, at the prosecutors going to avoid a batson challenge they could've not discriminated. that would've been the first thing but secondly with regard to the information that is collected here come it doesn't seem like it's information just to exercise strikes when they say, if it comes down to having to take an african-american ms. hardge or ms. garrett might be okay. and the district attorney himself said mayor lynn garrett has the most potential of the black prospective jurors. in other words, the blacks were taken out of the picture. they were taken and dealt with separately it and over the weekend the question ended on a friday. and it gets it all right, over the weekend you got a chance to decide who you're going to strike. they knew exactly who they're going to strike because the jurors are listed in order. the state goes first edited excerpts the steps -- edited except skoucher, there's no going bac

i would not describe to the supreme court that kind of power at that time. it is pretty late in the day. politics of the situation that jeff describes are really important. an important indication from the court. court -- n from the there had been -- of race relations. creation of the late 1940's. you put your finger on something really important. the impact of the war. in terms of african-american in coming toe war this country and being mistreated including because of alsoegregation laws experiencing terrible incidents of violence and the juxtaposition of soldiers having fought hitler and his creed. with their treatment here. they felt as if they were experiencing the same kind of ideology in this country was enough to you -- the struggle for civil rights. other things happening were that african-americans have migrated in substantial numbers to the north which meant that they were forced in politics which was important to changing a sense of where african-americans belonged in society. you mentioned the movements in sports which was very important. all of

i want to bring in now tom goldstein from the scotus blog and tracks actions of the supreme court. are you there? >> i am. >> tell us your reaction first of all to the court taking this on. >> the supreme court signaled to step in because it actually put the law on hold. it was a divisive question in the supreme court and when the court of appeals refused to stop the law from taking effect, the justices did. and also, it really is about time for them to clarify the law because we haven't had a major decision since the ideological shift on the law happening with abortion and justice o'connor in the center and in the end an advocate for at least modest abortion rights retired. so now we have the test of a more conservative supreme court, the center vote being justice kennedy and whether it is that they will in essence the decision in roe versus wade undercut significantly. as pete once described it, this is a back door way to restrict abortion. it's advocated in medical terms but others hope it's almost impossible to have an abortion with them and a major challenge to the basic right.

and it was an enormous historic leap forward in supreme court jurisprudence. e wanted the court not to see windsor that way. now again the one difference is the end of proposition case they were arguing everyone in the country every gay prison in the country should have the right to marry. when there was different. all we were arguing is then when we started the case, when i argued the case mind, when we won the case got 12 states that allow gay people to marry that in those states was wrong and unconstitutional for the government to say even though new york or massachusetts and allows people people to marry we are going to treat those as invalid. it is a much narrow were released but we were seeking in a much more moderate case and we wanted to really differentiate the case. we were worried the court wasn't ready to go all the way there and we wanted the court to see windsor as the sort of easy moderate next step. >> host: you write that when proposition eight was argued that lawyers have to hire line standards to meet sure they could get into the court and ge

you mentioned the pennsylvania supreme court race. there are seven members on the supreme court, three members will be decided today. so this of course is a very big deal. in fact, one political expert i talked with yesterday called this the most important race of this election cycle. that is because the men and women on the court have far greater impact on what happens here locally. also the supreme court race will decide how it is made up politically in terms of democrats or republicans. you also have that mayor's race in philadelphia, people will be watching, also in montgomery county who will win the seat for district attorney. again roles with far reaching impact. the question is again, how many people will come out and vote. turnout is expected to be low in these off-year elections. coming up i spoke with people about whether or not they will get to the polls. vile that again when we see you again in about 30 minutes from now. live in norristown, matt delucia, "nbc 10 news." >> in the garden state, voters will choose a new gener

let's take two more calls and then we will talk about what the supreme court look like in 1915 -- 1952. this case was heard twice by two different courts. and we will talk about the drama . gary is in tampa, florida. you are on the air. welcome. i am aware that there were impeachable warren signs on southern highways. what i am curious is brown versus board of education, was it an issue in the presidential campaigns? i do not remember reading about it that it was a specific issue raised in any debates and i am curious to hear some feedback. i can't say that it was made a highly salient issue in politics certainly in the south where there was deep resistance to brown. debated in formal terms, it was certainly something that was talked about, warren was a focused, he was a person from which one wanted a pound of flesh. he was the representation of town in the court in the sense that court had been an activist in a way that it had never been before. i think it is clear that brown was an issue in politics generally. i am sure that at various moments there was an issue in presidential polit

the four democratic appointees on the supreme court are a solid block. when kennedy joins them it is not in any meaningful sense the roberts court it is the kennedy court. so i would like to conclude with lessons for the next conservative president. or at least the next conservative president who cares in a meaningful way about the constitution. sort of look forward hopefully cheerfully to the next ten years of the roberts court. as jan mentioned on inauguration date 2017 there will be three justices in their 80s, one in his late 70s and there is going to be an opportunity for some meaningful changes and those will be important. ideology matters. judicial philosophy matters. the supreme court wields substantial government power and what your philosophy is as to the proper use of that power makes a huge difference to the country, to the future of the nation, to your faithful stewardship of the constitution, and sometimes it's literally a matter of life and death, who you appoint to the supreme court. it makes a world of difference, for example, that we end

how did it get from this level to the supreme court? >> he gets there fast. d that's another aspect of this case. it ends up in front of the court of appeal and they end up staying the judges order but then expediting case along so so it is a very short order. faster than the typical case. just as request -- justice rehnquist and his fellow clerks heard the argument. having a feeling this case might be coming to them at some >> you point. say it's unusual. but the court can really respond very quickly if it needs to. what makes this particularly unusual that they did? >> precisely the certain sense that we've been talking about. there are boots on the ground. that is not lost on anybody. the steel industry is real concerned about losing control over this. way you look,h everybody wants it done yesterday. >> the steel is continuing to be produced because there's an injunction so nothing happened to production during this? >> it's continuing to be produced. the whole arguement that adds to this artisan with the war in the background is we cannot stand for an int

mike, good chance this ends up at the supreme court. >> reporter: well, it probably will, and that ishe silver lining that many proponents of the president's executive action see on this ruling from the fifth circuit of appeals court, a decision handed down last evening was 2-1. the republican inductees voting to uphold an earlier ruling from a lower court in texas who blocked the president's plan to expand the two programs known in washington speak as dopa, and darka, to allow those who have been in this country since they were young, brought by their parents or by other means, to stay here in the united states. in other words defer action on deporting them. also those who are parents of u.s. citizens. some 5 million still in limbo after that lower court decision in february, and now this decision, again, not unexpected from the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. the silver lining that many see, this will now allow this case to be brought to the supreme court, the department of justice is expected to do that in this term. you recall the supreme court just began its term j

of the rulings in the supreme court of the supreme court are the rulings govern us a primacy clause andhey governed a state. so again while you are going to see these the reality is that's happening. they are getting married in kentucky where ken davis is the clerk so the reality on the ground is that equality is happening but particularly in this kind of instant culture that we live in i think that you're going to see people that have attempted to become the next kim davis but i think it is just a lot of noise and smoke and in the end -- >> host: thank you so much for being here. >> guest: thank you so much. it's a pleasure. >>> the booktv program in which the authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed. watch past programs online at booktv.org. .. >>

before democratic appointees in the supreme court or a solid lock. when kerry joint event it does not in any meaningful sense the roberts court. it is the kennedy court. so i'd like to conclude with lessons for the next conservative president always the next into the present who cares any meaningful way about the constitution, sort of look forward hopefully, chief whip to the next 10 years of the roberts court but as jim mentioned, on inauguration day 2070 nearly three justices in their 80s, one in his late '70s combat is going to be an opportunity for in all likelihood some meaningful change the dose of the important. etiology matters. judicial. [applause] the supreme court wields substantial government power and what your philosophy is makes a huge difference out of huge difference to the country, to the future of the nation come to your faithful stewardship of the constitution and sometimes it is literally a matter of life and death, who you appoint to the supreme court. it makes a world of difference, for example, that we ended up with david soute

to theiled this petition supreme court of georgia. rs to us from looking at this over the weekend that r.j. reynolds tobacco company versus durham county, which the court decided in 1986, the court said unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a ruling on the merits, the writ went to the supreme court. , the rulea court nonetheless is that a certificate of problem -- probable cause is to be granted if there is arguable merit to the case. >> does that affect the scope of our review? are we addressing the claim on its own merits? applied --rt has looked through to the last recent decision, the decision of the habeas corpus court. in georgia, an application is made for a certificate of probable cause to the georgia supreme court and that is often denied summarily, as it was in this case. >> i really do not understand that. you say we would be reversing the georgia supreme court. is there was held for itsble basis review. if we reverse that decision, we tell the georgia supreme court, you are wrong, there is an arguabl

you.monday morning to headlines about the supreme court cost decision -- the supreme court's decisionhealth law back in the high court to the front page of the national section of the new york times, the supreme court to hear another case of contraception and religion. partontraceptive mandate of the affordable care act requiring employers to cover 20 types of fda approved drugs and services as part of their health plans. the washington times noting the glue -- the groups that brought this case equate morning after pills with abortion. to explain more we turn to lawrence hurley, reuters supreme court correspondent. good morning. explain what is being challenged and who brought this case back to the supreme court. to an this is a challenge accommodation the administration introduced to deal with religious objections held by groups that are not religious institutions but our nonprofit groups that have religious affiliations. , certain nonprofits that provide services that are related to religious groups. host: review of this decision has come before the supreme court before. review how

national institution center, xloring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759. earnest mile an hour a esest mi. >> quite often and many of our most famous decisions are ones that court took quite unpopular. >> let's go to a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in society of 310 million different people. who helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> 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 steel case known as youngstown steel and two company versus sawyer. to get us started to night, we're going to start with a piece of vintage film. it's from a documentary and featured harry truman on april 8th, 1952 as he announces to the nation of sothe seizure of the industry. >> with american troops facing the enemy on the field of battle, i will not be living up to my owniath of office if i fa to do whatever is required to provide t

congress that basically says that. >> host: before the court ruled that there was the alabama supreme courtthat refused to issue the marriage licenses going against a federal court order requiring that and you mentioned that kentucky clerk of

the evacuation order, fred korematsu defied the order and was arrested at his case went to the supreme courtfind out how the court ruled with our guest peter irons, author of "justice at war," and karen korematsu, daughter of the plaintiff. exploring the mood of america and u.s. policies and we will follow mr. korematsu's life, coming up on the next "landmark eastern.onight at 9:00 for background on each case, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available at c-span.org /landmark cases. communicators,he we discussed cyber security threats facing the u.s. and other countries. guest ands is our talks about what the u.s. is doing to avoid attacks by china and russia. cyber security legislation passed by the house and senate. on the program mr. lewis is joined by tim starks, cyber security reporter for politico. this mission to defend cyberspace but they have neither the authorities the resources. they need to think about critical infrastructure. the bill in 2012 would have dealt with critical infrastructure, probably not in the right way and you saw the obama administrati

and on the shad point, i think the other thing i would have said is the florida supreme court, and i'll refer the court to the bevel case. the florida supreme court has said that the 16 aggravating factors that makes one eligible for death are vastly incommensurate in terms of relative levels of moral ability opposite of the predicate of shad. >> could i ask you this about ring? i wasn't on the court at the time of ring, so could you tell me if ring is entitled to greater weight as a precedent than, let's say, gregg versus georgia and the other cases upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty? >> oh, i'm not -- i wouldn't be prepared to say -- to assign weight to either of them. i think ring is certainly predicated on gregg to justice scalia's point. if gregg hadn't decided that there has to be a determinate, specific appellate reviewable narrowing of sentencing jury's discretion, ring wouldn't come up because an aggravating factor wouldn't be an element. >> do you think this scheme, assuming we agree with justice scalia, that you don't really need unanimity? would it still be

you asked earlier, what did the supreme court say? here, i'll show you the very short orders list from the court. this is it. this is all we get when the supreme court decides to take a case. it just says, latin scholar you are, it means the court will take the case. this is the name of the case. whole women's case and others versus cole and then it just says the petition is granted. that's supreme court speak for we'll take the case. you were talking about this mississippi case. here's an odd little footnote to all of this. so mississippi did something very similar to what texas did. it had one of the same restrictions. but if that restriction had gone into effect it would have shut down the only abortion clinic in the state in jackson, mississippi. the lower court said you can't do that. you can't just shut down the only clinic and the 5th circuit of appeals which upheld the texas law, the decision appealed today, that same court of appeals said, well, we are going to strike down, we'll put on hold the mississippi law because a state

pa supreme court races. i want to get you to real quick before we get to the break.hree of the seven seats are up for grabs, and that's really never happened recently. >> 1705. >> okay. that's not recent. >> we were a british colony the last time there were three -- >> give us a nugget here. what should we be looking for with these races? >> look, this is all about party turnout. the voters, despite $10 million, a record amount raised for the court elections, will not know these voters. i stopped polling in them a decade ago. i got too many folks who said, "who are these candidates?" they're not allowed to say very much under the judicial canon in this state. they don't say very much. they had a big debate at widener law school. they all sounded strikingly familiar. they particularly went after the supreme court on how it handled the business with the grand jury and... >> let me ask this -- does anyone think we should not elect judges, supreme court justices, in pennsylvania? >> not elect? oh. >> not elect them. appoint them in or some other way. >> appointing. >> so

to the allegations. >> robert epps is a writer for the supreme court on the atlantic. i'm not sure you heard what we were just talking about attorney epps but here's a question for you, if in fact the supreme court does rule in favor foster could this ruling apply retroactively to other cases involving the use of racially tinged injuries? >> no. it's pretty clear from the original batson decision that that is not what's called a landmark decision. it's not what we call a landmark decision and doesn't apply retroactively. what it will do i think is put some of the trial judges in the death belt states on notice that we're really serious about this. and don't just come to us with any lame excuse for excusing a juror. so that's quite important. >> let's look at some of the other cases coming up this week, there's spokio versus robbins, suing against incorrect information appearing on the web. and whether an individual can sue a company for posting an inaccurate report even though there's no real proof that the inaccuracy harmed the person. tell us attorney epps what is at

now there is hope that the supreme court will bring this up and issue a ruling sometime next year. no one needs to be remind understand that is an election year, a volatile issue on the campaign trail. donald trump and others on the republican side making a great deal of hay over their opposition to the reform, trump saying he wants to deport all of the estimated 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally. the president's initiative on hold as owl eyes turn toward the supreme court who could issue a final ruling sometime the middle of next year, again, a presidential election year. >> mike viqueira reporting from washington. republicans criticized the plan as an illegal overreach and 26 states challenged the plan in court. >> this morning, the university of missouri is looking for a new president after weeks of racial techies on campus, both of the schools top leaders resigned. members of the football team who threatened to stay on the field are expect back at practice later today. what i also the mood on campus? >> one of relief. we are in front of a tent city largel

jury selection and racial discrimination before the supreme court. bush tries to jumpstart his campaign. and much more. >> ifill: officials from at least five countries are investigating why a russian jetliner broke up in mid-air and crashed in egypt this weekend. there are many questions tonight, but little agreement so far that may explain what happened. wreckage lay strewn across miles of desert after saturday's crash, leaving a giant, mangled puzzle for russian and egyptian investigators. they're looking for any clues to what downed the airliner and killed 224 people -- everyone on board. but as a top russian official at the scene said yesterday, that remains far from clear. >> ( translated ): initial examination showed that at the moment we can't exclude any version of the crash. we will be looking into all possibilities. >> ifill: what is known, is the flight took off from the resort town of sharm el- sheikh bound for st. petersburg. it had reached 31,000 feet -- cruising altitude -- when it broke up over the sinai peninsula, just 23 minutes af

the death penalty case heading to the supreme court. did prosecutors make sure it was an all-white jury? change of heart. >> it is particularly a crisis in the evangelical christian community. i hope i can make some progress. >> reporter: an evangelical christian's reversal on gun rights. a surprising about face. >>> plus jon stewart's last hire before leaving the daley show. how this long comic is using humor and honesty to make us laugh and think. ♪ >>> did a russian airliner break apart over egypt or was it taken down? two days after a crash claimed 224 lives in the sinai, that question is still unanswered. the egyptian government says it is too soon to happen. peter sharp reports. >> reporter: in the early hours of monday morning a russian government plane carrying the victims of the air disaster touched down in st. petersburg. all passengers and crew on board died. the bodies had been brought to a city mortuary where relatives are now tasked with identifying their loved ones. at the crash site in egypt, experts have been searching

taking a local today's top stories, the justice department is considering an appeal to the supreme court a federal appeals court blocked the president's executive action on immigration. the plan would have granted permission for 5 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. and apply for work permits. >> after weeks of tensions in the university of missouri, both of the school leaders have resigned or will resign after a hunger strike and the football team that threatened. >> quit. >> eight republican presidential candidates faceoff oh night in a presidential debate. >> governor chris christie and mike huckabee will faceoff in the earlier debate. >> the newest republican presidential poll finds the outsiders still leading the way. a poll has ben carson leading the pack, donald trump following. the only other republican in double detects is senator marco rubio with 12%. alan schroeder is a professor, good morning. thank you for being with us. let's talk about the debate tonight. after fierce discussion about the mad raters after the debate, what do fox business news anchors need t

there is a huge amount on supreme court no nations. of courage nine members of the supreme court, only one had -- anthony scalia in the 1980's, and that was in one of the large hearing rooms of this building. >> you have an opening statement? >> no, i don't come except to express my honor being nominated by the president and i'm happy to be here and affords answering the committee's questions. >> this building opened in 1958. it was meant to be built as inexpensively as possible. as soon as it was built it was inadequate for the purposes in a lot of ways. there weren't enough elevators in the building. that may seem like a relatively small issue. when senators have to vote, they have 15 minutes to get from here to the capital building across the street. there is a sad way that links them underground so they can be shuttled back and forth. if they are running to the fifth floor, they have to get the elevator to the basement to take it over. as a result there were problems ernie on that problems early on. no senator wants to miss the boa

[laughter] proving yet again the supreme court is the irony free zone. ghter] confirming the personal animus maybe. [laughter] so that is the big picture and think the biggest difference between chief justice roberts and conservative members of the court is an emphasis on incrementalism and i can walk you through how he has done that were they taken a small step in and come back to rent and profits - - prefaced this time to decide a case that i've actually arguing to cast doubt on the tested -- constitutionality of the public unions from those who don't belong on the first amendment grounds not have that case represents a few should overturn the precedent that was previously upheld. i am not entirely sure if there should be a conservative principle that says income angeles and is preferable to the scalia approach. but you could have written brown v. board of education in 54 black schools were clearly on an equal with the plessey the ferguson the way they did not satisfy the standard but the problem is that you keep in place the foundational province contr

racial bias, a case before the supreme court that could change supreme court rules and other disputes to be heard this would >>> self exception, a battle between the n.f.l. to its players - from the battle with cancer and equipment they wear on the field >>> we begin in russia, where officials released satellite images showing a crash site of a plane that went down in egypt. the picture shows places where pieces of metal and fragments landed after the aircraft came apart. a camp set up by workers is visible. more than 220 people died in the crash on sinai peninsula. peter sharp reports from st. petersburg, a city in mourge. >> in front of one of russia's potent symbol, the winter palace, hundreds gathered together taking comfort and support at a time of suffering. the dead were known to many. >> translation: on this flight there was a girl i have known since i was six. her name was leah, we were at the same gymnastics class. >> translation: they were mainly our people. citizens of st. petersburg. it's not just them, be don't want an aircraft to crash again. >> reporter: at the crash s

. >>> pennsylvania voters make history of the election for the state supreme court.e'll talk to a legal expert about what the democrats' sweep of open seats means for people all across the state. >>> to a developing story in the lehigh valley. kraft-heinz downsize, closing the plant in upper macungie with six others in the u.s. and canada. kraft and heinz merged earlier this year. lehigh county plant make a1 steak sauce, mustard and coffee products for keurig. >> thanks to the south port project at the port, the governor hopes to add between 600 and 7,000 well-paying jobs. crews in the midst of dredging the delaware river in an effort to attract more business by allowing larger ships to stop at the port with cargo. the work is on track for completion 2017. >> need to make investments but need to make investments that are wise. this is not something that where government is trying to push water uphill. this is a great resource already and all we're trying to do is nudge the market to recognize we already recognize. >> the port has had another year, by the way, of doub

he was originally sentenced to death, but the louisiana supreme court reversed it. was retried and sentenced to life without parole. mr. montgomery has served more than 50 years in prison. here is the one-hour oral argument before the nation's highest court. >>> we'll hear argument this morning, case 14280, montgomery versus louisiana. mr. bernstein. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the issue is whether to decide the question of miller's retroactivity in this case or in a federal habeas case such as johnson versus mannis, number 15-1 on this court's docket. in today's case there is no jurisdiction over that question because the point is enforce the supremacy clause which states that when, quote, the laws of the united states, unquote, apply, quote, the judges -- these are the key words -- in every state shall be bound thereby. there is no such thing as supreme federal law that depends on whether a particular state voluntarily makes federal precedence binding. when a state does that, when a state voluntarily adopts non-binding federal precedence, th

all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> bright core monsoon boldly opposed the interment of japanese during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, he was taking his case all the way to the supreme court. >> this week on landmark cases, we discuss the landmark case of korematsu against the united states. harbor, 120,000 people of japanese origin who lived near military places were sent to internment camps. >> this is a re-creation of a barrick. they were 120 feet long and divided into six different rooms. they didn't have sheetrock or ceilings, they didn't have masonite on the floor, it would have been freezing, even in the daytime. the only heating that they had was a potbellied stove. but this would not have been able to heat the entire room in a comfortable way. >> challenging the evacuation order, he defied the order and was arrested and his case went to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled with our guest, peter irons, author of justice at war, the story of the japanese-a