i never argued a case in the supreme court. >> bessie did not want anyone else to argue with the supreme court if she couldn't. at the retirement dinner chief justice earl warren retired as guest speaker. crediting bessie with putting the flash on the bare bones of the fair standards act, bare-bones that would have been inadequate without the implementation bessie margolin forged in the courtrooms of the land. it is hard to top what the chief justice said about bessie margolin, so i will offer this one concluding comments. fair labor lawyer, the title of bessie margolin's biography, refers to the new deal legislation she shepherded through the courts but also refers to the fairness of her career, the obstacles she faced as a woman, the opportunities that influential supporters afforded her, the use of her feminine charms and nonconformist personal life. for me the title represents the challenge i have imposed on myself to restore bessie margolin's place in history and do justice to her remarkable story. i hope i have succeeded and thank you for your attention. [applause] >> in the time r

about the supreme court decision made on immigration today. >>> supreme court and immigration policy. pete williams says the ruling deals a blow to a white house that used executive measures to push forward immigration reform in the wake of congressional inaction and to obamacare who has sought to rewrite a legacy that are some in latino circles calling him the deporter in chief. president obama responded to the 4-4 decision in a news conference earlier today. let's watch. >> they are strong in their opinions earlier and -- [multiple conversations] >> good morning, everybody. i want to talk about the two actions the supreme court up hold. i am pleased they uphold that diversity is important in our society and the country should provide a higher education to all people. we are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we strive to provide an equal shot to everybody and that was upheld today. second, america is a diverse nation because we are a nation of immigrants. our founders conceived of this country as a refuge of the world and welcoming wave after wave of immigrants for two

we are honored to be joined by panel.hts supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. ♪ [applause] supremeourt justice soanya sotomayor. [applause] kathryn fitz. and supreme court publications director. [applause] >> it is now my privilege to certifiedthe board cardiologist, jazz musician, and former president of cornell university of iowa. he is interested in learning and most importantly, it he is a pescatarian. you for the introduction and thank you on behalf of the american people for the great job you do. so innovative and creative. this is an amazing museum. [applause] >> and especially in such an interesting election year, we appreciate all you and your colleagues are doing to share so many aspects of america. esteemed colleagues and friends, welcome to this unique opportunity to find out more about the highest court in the landing and how its members have worked together. the supreme court and the smithsonian have long had close ties. since the 19 century, the chief justice is served as the smithsonian board of regents. i am indebted to chief john roberts for his work in this capac

these are training grounds for supreme court justices. who gets in this lower federal court offices, federal court judgeships as well as the supreme court. from my perspective, you want to judge faithful to the tax, not someone who will interpret it however they think it would be interpreted or sort of the legal theory of the day --. >> aaron did an excellent job with the typical. but judicial nominations and philosophies. this is not a typical election year. there's a lot of questions about who the front running candidates, and who they might appoint and what their particular philosophy is when it comes to the supreme court. further comments on how this election might face the supreme court. if you can also comment on what we might expect a different running candidates on either side of the aisle. i know that is a difficult question. does that makes the panel so entertaining --. >> yeah, donald trump made his list and there were some very commendable judges. there was a pretty mainstream right of center sort of republican list. there were

republicans in congress currently are willfully preventing the supreme court from being fully staffed and functioning as our founders intended. and today's situation underscores the degree to which the court is not able to function the way it's supposed to. the court's inability to reach a decision in this case is a very clear reminder of why it's so important for the supreme court to have a full bench. for more than 40 years, there's been an average of just over two months between a nomination and a hearing. i nominated judge merrick garland to the supreme court more than three months ago. but most republicans so far refuse to even meet with him. they are allowing partisan politics to jeopardize something as fundamental as the impartiality and integrity of our justice system. and america should not let it stand. this is an election year. and during election years, politicians tend to use the immigration issue to scare people with words like "amnesty" in hopes that it will whip up votes. keep in mind that millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ances

supreme court. ari melber is here with us in the studio. counselor, you've had a little more time than the brothers williams here to read through these opinions while we've been yammering about them. what stands out to you? >> this is the second time this court has reviewed what is called the top ten percent plan at the university of texas. this is a particular style of affirmative action and it is not the predominant style and uses the fact that a lot of schools in texas are already racially segregated to give automatic awed mettance to those in the top ten percent. the court finds that abigail fisher, who said she felt discriminated against, they say she was not denied equal treatment at the time her application was rejected. there's affirmative action as a broad policy and particular person who was alleging harm here and justice kennedy as you were discussing with pete is not a full throated endorser of all affirmative action, still writing an opinion here with three other justices saying at that

and the supreme court. around president obama's executive order, which was permitting millions of undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and shielding them from deportation. factturns that around in a the supreme court deciding 4-4 that obama overstepped his authority. as 4shield of as many away andmmigrants goes block the president's executive order and puts millions of undocumented immigrants at risk for staying in the country. they may be deported. we will have more from our supreme court reporter. the fact that the supreme court was not a full bench, making this decision, and what it means and a very decisive -- divisive cycle. mark: breaking news out of germany. , it has beenle reported, have been wounded in a shooting at a cinema in the southwest near frankfurt. fromriginal reports came the newspaper citing one heavily armed and masked man into the cinema 2:00 p.m. london time and barricaded himself inside adding that witnesses have heard gunshots. several people have been wounded. it was uncl

in a major setback for the immigrant rights movement, a divided supreme court has blocked president obama'slan to shield as many as five million undocumented immigrants from deportation. on thursday, the court returned a 4-to-4 ruling, leaving in place a lower court decision thatat obama had oversrstepped s authority. the case concerned obama's deferred action n for parents of amamericans program, or dapa, which would have shieldd millions of immigrants with us citizen or permanent resident children from deportation. it also affects obama's attempt to expand the exexisting deferrd action for childhood arrivals program, or daca, which since 2012 has protected immigrants brought to the united states as children. at a news conference in los angeles, undocumented immigrants responded to the supreme court's titie. had this little bit of hope i would be able to see my parents, which has now been dashed. i also know we will not stop. together we will contitinue to fight because this fight must go on and it will not stop. we need to knock on doors and touch hearts because we're immigrants who came

he is a supreme court expert, and he has written several books about the supreme court. thank you for being back. we have a former federal judge for the district of utah from 2002-2007. he also served as deputy attorney general from 1986-1988, and is now a professor of criminal law procedure at the university of utah. so, what are the constitutional issues in the miranda case? >> miranda tries to settle a question that has been around the country for several hundred years now. the question is, how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when they are trying to get information and what rules will regulate whether a confession can be used in court? susan: what is it about this case that made it a landmark? >> as your opening clip showed, it transformed the culture. look at all the tv shows. i was trying before the show to see if i could do it by heart. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. you have the right to consult with an attorney. if you are indigent, one will be appointed to you. how did

supreme court. the president of the united states did what he was supposed to do. you see, in article 2 of the constitution, there is a requirement that the president fill the vacancies on the supreme court. why would the founding fathers put a requirement on the president? they understood that some president could play games with vacancies on the court. said no, you have to send your nominee's name to the united states senate where we will have the opportunity to advise and consent as to that nominee. the president met his responsibility. judge merrick garland works for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. in fact, he's the chief justice of the d.c. circuit. the president sent his name to fill the scalia vacancy. is merrick garland qualified? the american bar association just this week said what we already knew. merrick garland is unanimously well qualified for the position. so the president's nominee at that point would come before the senate. in the history of the united states, we have never, ever

supreme court. the and had we want, the republicans they could create problems. today we see exactly the, problems that can be created. the human cost of the senate republicans, the reckless refusal to fill the vacancy in the supreme court is going to be felt by literally millions of re people. today, the the supreme court failed to resolve the legal pres challenge to doppler and expanded dock, the expanded orders of the president. the result of that tie vote, four-four tie vote, the result of that leaves millions of families in legal limbo. i urge the justice department to consider all the legal options, to swiftly overturn the injunction that is blocking president obama from using his legal authority to set immigration enforcementdw-abidin priorities. it will leaks make our country safer and allow law-abiding individuals with the prisoner communities to step out of the shadows and contribute more fully to a country they love. tie vote on the united states appearing vote, cannot remember. the last t

i want to say a few words to the case of the supreme court spoke on today. first, the affirmative-action case i am pleased the court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society than that this country should provide a high-quality education to all our young people regardless of their background. we are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody. that is what was upheld today. second, one of the reasons why america is such a diverse and inclusive nation is because we are a nation of immigrants. our founders conceive of this country is a refuge for the world and for more than two centuries welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful, dynamic, entrepreneurial and it has shaped our character and it has made us stronger. but for more than two decades our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken. the fact that the supreme court was not able to issue a decision today does not just set the system back further, it takes us further from the countr

thought that "game of thrones" would have easily been the most exciting season finale but the supreme court blew it out of water and they only lost one character. (laughter) the court just ended its term yesterday but before they left they dropped some bombs. >> an evenly divided supreme court blocked the president's immigration reform. >> the supreme court struck down a severe anti-abortion law in texas. >> supreme court voted unanimously to vacate former virginia governor bob mcdonald's conviction. >> upheld affirmative action program in texas. >> upheld persons who commit domestic violence can lose gun ownership right. >> trevor: damn! look at the supreme court getle all their (bleep) done before they go on summer break. (laughter) right now congress is looking at them going, that's a thing? yeah, that's a thing, congress. not only does the supreme court get it done, but they get it done in style. >> the opinions are printed and handed out for reporters. but it's a long way from the press room to the television cameras. so summer interns pick up the opinions and race them to reporters ou

the supreme court says we cannot decide it. that leaves in place a lower court order that put a hold on the president's authority to enforce this law. so it is a dead letter for the rest of the administration. >> pete williams, thank you. here is the president >> first in the affirmative action case, i am pleased the supreme court upheld basic notion that diversity is an important value for our society and this country should provide a high education for all young people regardless of their backgrounds. we are not a country that guarantees people's outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot for everybody, that's what we upheld today. >> one of the reasons why america is a diverse and inclusive nation is because we are a nation of immigrants. our founders conceived this country as a refuge for the world and for more than two centuries of wave of immigrants kept us youth full and dynamic and entrepreneurial and shaped our characters and made us stronger. for more than two decades now, our immigration system everybody ackno

>> as you just saw, president obama just finished speaking moments ago about a tie vote by the supreme court this morning, blocking his immigration plan. this morning's tie vote leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling the state of obama administration did not have necessary authority to shield millions of ill league a.m. immigrants to deportation, one sentence opinion effectively kills the plan for the rest of the president's term. the president shared his disappointment in the ruling. >> i think it is heart breaking for millions of imigrants who made their lives here, who have raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, is her in our military and more fully crib to this country we all love in an open way. >> house democrats continue an unprecedented protest, they say, is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. the democrats are calling for new gun control legislation, in light of the orlando shooting, and they say, they'll keep it up until they get a vote. >> but cbs weijia jiang reports, republicans aren't likely to give in any time soon. sh

also, the thomson reuters supreme court correspondent examines decisions by the supreme court. be sure to watch washington journal this morning. join the discussion. is insident obama california today to deliver remarks and participate in a panel discussion with mark zuckerberg. it is part of the global entrepreneurship summit. you can see it live starting at 1:45 eastern here on c-span. today we hear from jake sullivan, foreign-policy advisor for hillary clinton. he's speaking at the truman center's annual conference looking at terrorism financing, conflict zones, refugee migration, and africa. our live coverage begins at 5:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. on american history tv on c-span 3, this saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. >> by the end of the 1880's, you have as dramatic upsurge, a veteranss surge in organizations, in the membership in these organizations and in the statues they create. >> university of georgia professor scott nesbitt discusses the ongoing debate over confederate war monuments and how many were the result of campaigns by southern wom

pete is outside the supreme court. and pete, i understand you have more details about the ruling itself. >> well, just having scanned through it now, thomas. first of all, they look at each of the restrictions. on the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, the justices say they can't see any advantage over the old law, which said that doctors should have what they called working arrangements with nearby hospitals. so if something happened at an abortion clinic and they needed to get a patient to a hospital, they could do that. the justices say we don't see why you'd change that. secondly, on the surgical requirement, the requirement that abortion clinics have the same construction standards as walk-in surgery centers, they say that makes no sense at all for the large number of women who never have surgery for an abortion. the so-called medical abortions, where a woman takes two pills. what t court says, if there are complications in those situations, they're going to develop when the wo

instead what the supreme court concluded with the fifth circuit is, that it is congress that decides not the executive branch. so the ball goes back into congress's court and congress gets to decide how to write immigration laws that deal with the challenge. it can not be done by executive fiat by the obama administration. charles: that much is clear although in his press conference and since then members of his administration indicated they may not try to reattempt on this particular topic but we are bracing for a wave of executive orders on a variety of topics, including the president bringing up climate change. so i'm not sure if he got clearly the message from the supreme court today? >> well on the climate change issue they suffered a setback on that with the hold the supreme court put on clean power plant. they may be bracing for another round of executive orders we're preparing for another round of lawsuits to put a stop to executive overreach. charles: the election in november obviously underscores what this, by the way, we had this and also we had a ruling on affirmative acti

very clear reminder why it is so important for the supreme court to have a full bench. for more than 40 years there is been an average of just over two months between a nomination and a hearing. i nominate judge mgarland three months ago, most republicans so far refused to meet with him. they are allowing policy politics to jeopardize. america should not let it stand. this is an election year, during election years, politicians tend to use immigrations to scare people. keep in mind that millions of us and myself included going back to generations of this country and we don't like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to american citizenships. millions of people coming forward and work to get right with the law under this policy, they have been living here for years, too and in some case even decade decades. leaving the broken system the way it is, that's not a solution. build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars with taxpayers' money is abetted. what is really just factually incorrect and not going to work. it is not good for this country. it is a

in april the supreme court heard the appeal. the big question. what constitute the scope of the action under federal corruption law. what lawmakers can and can not do. the case is carefully monitored not only by those that appear before public officials but by public officials themselves. who are concerned about the boundaries they face when interacting with constituents, donors and business leaders. >> a few months ago the supreme court seemed sympathetic to mcdonald. it will be interesting to see how it all plays out tomorrow. reporting live in dc, back to you. >> thank you very much, stephanie. >> the governor's wife was head's case. >>> metro teamed up with first responders today to conduct a safety drill simulating a potential smoke incident. dozens of volunteers portrayed anxious passengers as mostly cloudy filled up the area. >> it will be helpful for them and for us for what they go through when emergency happens. >> we need good public safety reponce, -- response time, everyone needs to know. >> reporter: firefighters worked quickly in t

both supreme court and the lower federal court. so, the process of selection is by design political. it is on the ballot when you vote or the presidency and the senate. that is not a bug. that is a feature of our system. so, it is the political selection and then judicial independence kicks in and then there is life tenure -- tenure for good behavior. that creates an interesting dynamic. justices in the modern era stay on much longer than presidents, and presidents now our term limited in a way they weren't at the founding -- actually, some of the justicerotated off very quickly. i'm going to tell you a little bit about john jay and how he could not wait to get off the court. the tenure of justices was very short and presidents could, in theory, be reelected in perpetuity. the way governors were reelected. at the time the constitution was adopted, the governor left only to become vice president, which he thought was "a respectable retirement." and he died in office. the presidency could last a long time. the judges rotated off for

one is supreme court overall and the battle.h went front and center in this campaign because not only do you have this issue of immigration that will be a rallying cry for donald trump and hillary clinton to get their bases, the whole notion of what is going on with the 4-4 court and how the world of 4-4 court makes the stakes, raises the stakes in the presidential election. we have always heard presidential candidates say you have to vote because of the supreme court. when you see 4-4 split that becomes real for voters in a way that sometimes in past presidential elections it has been academic. now it seems real. both issues are real passionate drivers for the bases. >> i will go one step further. it's not just one supreme court justice you are probably looking at. it could be two. >> we are looking at multiple. >> thank you to all of you. i appreciate it. working hard at the white house. coming up next also breaking news, a very busy morning. this other news out of baltimore, a verdict, a long-awaited one in the murder trial o

of the supreme court in the presidential election.icans like speaker ryan don't care a great deal for donald trump but they are correct in knowing, in recognizing that donald trump will appoint very different people to the supreme court from hillary clinton and that alone justifies supporting him. >> hillary clinton tweeted today's heartbreaking scotus immigration ruling could tear apart 5 million families facing deportation. we must do better. there was another ruling. >> i think this was a bit of a surprise ruling. this was seven justices upholding the affirmative action program from the university of texas. this is the second time the case made it to the court, a white woman from texas sued the university for discrimination. she said the fact that see was white put her at disadvantage. this allows students in texas 10% to be accepted. they consider race as factor for admission. the justices said race can continue to be used as a factor but there was strong desnts. >> the president said he welcomed this decision as opposed to the ot

these are sort of training grounds for future supreme court so justices. hugely important both who gets in these lower federal court offices, federal court judgeships as well as the supreme court. from my perspective you want a judge who will be faithful to the text, not someone who will interpret it however they think it should be interpreted or as to sort of the legal theory of the day. >> i think erin does an excellent job describing the typical approaches of the right and the left when it comes to judicial nominations and philosophies, but as charlotte hayes mentioned earlier today this is not a typical election year and i would say, you know, right is left and up is down and i think there is a lot of questions about who the front running candidates whom they might appoint and what their particular philosophy is when it comes to the supreme court. so in your further comments on, you know, how it election might shape the future of the supreme court if you could also comment on maybe what we might expect of the front running candidates on either side of

republicans themselves praised him as a fantastic supreme court until he was actually the supreme court and now they are refusing to give him a hearing. in theave seen like immigration case, the court needs the full kopelman of nine justices. -- full complement of nine justices. i hope they will get it together have atheir jobs and confirmation vote on merrick garland p or he is unquestionably qualified. someone told me when they were reviewing his integrity that he is nearly a perfect human being. they actually said that. senators., republican give him an up or down vote. host: elizabeth wydra taking your calls. keith from north dakota, thank you for waiting on the democrats line. has she ever seen abortion done? i have seen it done on tv and they go after a live tv with .our sets and the kid was trying to get away from the forceps. they squished it and it popped like a balloon. it is murder. i'm totally against it. there is something wrong with women who want to have abortions. you know, i am not a doctor so i will not refute point by point what you just said, but particularly, i woul

>> kevin, live at the white house, thank you. >>> the supreme court ruled in favor of the university of texas race-based admissions program in a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that the university's admissions program that considers race among many factors under earlier court rulings and is constitutional. president obama said he was pleased with that decision. >>> the split by the supreme court over immigration highlighted the absence of justice antonin scalia and whether filling the vacancy on the bench would have done anything to change today's outcome. president obama thinks so, but others say that's just not the case. >> president obama not only denounced today's tied decision at the supreme court, which put a check on his executive power, but also used the loss as an opportunity to blast republicans for refusing to move forward on his nominee to replace the late justice, antonin scalia. judge mairk garland. >> those in congress are preventing and willingfully keeping the supreme court from functioning the way it's supposed to. >> garland's supporters say today's tie is the perfect

the supreme court says you can't do that, president obama. 4 million from even 5 million people coming in by executive action. the spin court says you can't do it. congress has to vote on immigration. i read about this, how president obama's executive order to grant amnesty to illegals pouring in our inner cities like donald trump has said black constituents, black voters start dealing with double-digit non-employment. rather supreme court. this is a devastating election issue for hillary clinton who has told black voters over and over again flatlands matter that i support mass illegal immigration. this is a wonder for donald trump. i hope you will see that. that was his most disciplined speech he saw and like others have said on your program, donald trump can win the black vote if he keeps talking about these failed policies and how hillary clinton basically make sacrificial lambs of lax over and over again. democrats have done this for 50 plus years. when are we going to wake up? stuart: i've got a little bit more to add to the decision here

sold out women. >> some advocates feared that the supreme court would deadlock 4-4 on this but justice kennedy once again provided the swing vote for what amounts to the court's most important ruling on buyers >>> and justin clarence thomas wrote his dissent saying that the ruling exemplifies the court's tendency to bend the rules. >>> our virginia government reacted on twitter. says this makes the right call putting women's health first and virginia passed similar laws but we have resolved serve dollars them. >>> ted cruz reacted tweeting the decision will not face the decision on the most innocent among us. >>> by unanimous decision close out mcdonald's conviction. his acts were described in 2014 the jury convicted mcdonald and his wife of taking bribes and loans johnny williams in exchange they sold things. what he did for williams and attended williams and part of the officials. >> if bob were here he would say he did stupid things but nothing criminal. the supreme court by unanimous decision agreed with. >>> precipitation george's police going door to door. the man seen he

came all the way up to the supreme court. so the question here was can the president go ahead and put this into effect while it's still in the lower courts. the supreme court couldn't answer that question. so that effectively leaves the legal stay on hold. two things about this. the administration has always said this policy had two components. first an enforcement setting of priorities that the administration would focus on criminals and terrorists and people who ought to be deported immediately, then it simply couldn't deal with all 11 million people who were here illegally so it would say to them we are just not going to get to you, we might as well admit you're going to stay. that part doesn't change. the administration enforcement policy wasn't challenged. what was challenged was the other part that said once those people were given in essence that deferral of deportation, they could get work permits so they still can't get that work permit. >> so just to look forward a little bit, what happens to this program then? does

merrick garland, my nominee to the supreme court. s the expanded common sense deferred action policies, announced two years at this't go forward stage until there is a nice justice on the court to break the tie. people will be disappointed today, but it's important to understand what today means. the deferred action policy that is been in place for the last 4 years is not affected by this rule. enforcement priorities developed by my administration are not affected by this ruling. this means that people that might have benefited from the expanded deferred action , long-term residents raising children who are americans or legal residents, they will remain low priorities for enforcement as long as you have not committed a crime. but today's decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system and allow people to come .ut of the shadows i think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who have raised families here, who hope for the opportunity

>> the supreme court obviously is five justices ruled today in our favor, and the issue is not whethers men or women sitting on the court. americans differ in their views about abortion. what's important and the courts recognize while people of good faith can disagree about abortion, the constitution protects our decisions that we make about whether or not to end a pregnancy. the decisions about our family and our lives and our health. and that's what matters. so people can make their own decisions, but what the court protects and the rule of law was vindicated today was that it is for women to make these decisions. that's been true for over 40 years and it was reaffirmed again today in this important case. >> ifill: were you surprised by justice kennedy's decision? >> justice kennedy was in the majority in the planned parenthood haves casey case which was the last abortion case that set the standard the court interpreted today, so justice ken ep diwas consistent with the decision as the court was in what they ruled on 24 years ago. >> ifill: let me ask you both briefly, is this it? is

host: lawrence hurley with thompson reuters, their supreme court reporter. 're looking at some of the key decision that is have come down from the court. wanted to point out reuters.com, their wider image segment, nice photo display or photo site of some of the pictures of the supreme court. we're linkage showing some of those now. the court coming down with decisions yesterday and one more set of decisions for monday. what are the cases still pending? guest: three cases left that will be decided on monday. one is the big abortion case which like the immigration case and the affirmative action case from texas, this was a law that was passed in texas a couple years ago that places significant restrictions on abortion clinics. and abortion providers caused up to half the clinics in the state to close down. and the court has to decide whether this law places an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion under the urt's 1973 case roe versus wade. so the -- again, the court closely divided 4-4 at the moment between liberals and conservatives. we don't kno

suzanne: this is the supreme court first major abortion ruling in nine years. this one a big win for abortion rights advocates. you could see a few of them remain here outside the court this afternoon. the high court ruling 5-3, the texas regulations on abortion clinics caused undue burden and violated a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. advocates on both sides rallied at the court. some flying in fro law that could curtail abortions without banning them. i prompted emotional responses from people on both sides of the issue. >> i have four daughters from 12 to 3. this is something i needed to stand up for them, for their rights, their future. i have had this privilege of choosing what goes on with my body my entire life. for them not to have that choice scares me. >> today, women in america lost. these regulations are the same of any other surgical facilities. abortion clinics don't have to follow the procedures is just wrong. every time a woman goes to get an abortion she will wonder if she is walking into a safe facility. suzanne: the pro

raich before the supreme court in 2004, one might have supposed that the left side of the court would have favored my clients who sought to use medical marijuana as authorized by california law while the right side of the court would have voted against so liberal a drug policy. yet chief justice rehnquist and justices thomas and o'connor sided with us while the four most progressive justices stood in opposition. and then we lost 6-3 when justices scalia and kennedy joined the ranks of the progressives. what was at stake for both sides, however, was not a policy dispute over marijuana, but a difference over constitutional principle. in particular, a principle disagreement over the sort of constitution we have and the proper role of judges in enforcing it. do we have a democratic constitution in which the rule of the majority takes priority unless expressly prohibited? be so, judges -- if so, judges should generally defer to the will of we the people as expressed by their representatives. or do we have a republican constitution which the rights of we the people take priority over the di

supreme court decisions today.st in a 5-3 decision the supreme court struck down portions of the texas law that would have placed new restrictions on abortion clinics and doctors. in the majority opinion, writing the majority opinion, judge steven breyer wrote this: the surge center requirement like the admitting privileges requirement poses few if any health benefits for women and poses a constitutional right on their un with that we are back with the panel. george? >> to pick up where clarence thomas was 78 years ago. 1938 the supreme court began the process without any warrant in the his industry or text of the document of giving us a two tier system of rights. it would be fundamental rights that the court picks and prefers and lesser rights. and all fundamental rights of which abortion has now become one would be subject to strict scrutiny whenever any government action affected the exercise of that right. given that, as settled law as it now is, it was not surprising that the restrictions on abortion clinics w

supreme court. justices split four to four on a challenge to president obama's immigration policy, leaving some plus, a decision that colleges can take race into consideration in deciding whom to admit. >> sreenivasan: also ahead this thursday, the politics of guns: with official cameras turned off, democrats turn to social media to document their more than 24 hour long sit-in protest on the house floor. >> woodruff: and, a fateful day for the u.k.: in a closely divided vote, millions of britons decide their future with the european union. >> sreenivasan: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> you never discriminate. you want everyone, the young, the old, the soft, the strong. but cancer, we're fighting you can immunotherapies and genetic testing, with laughter, with strength, because every one of us is doing one thing only: making cancer history. >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited tha

earlier this year the supreme court said it applied to back cases as well as cases now in the courts. this ruling affects more than 1,500 inmates across the country. but philadelphia has more juveniles sentenced to life without parole than any other country in the world. with me is the chief counsel and cofounder of the juvenile law center based here in philadelphia, juvenile law center advocates for those in the justice system and she was involved in the supreme court case that deemed that it was unconstitutional. thank you so much for being here this morning at -- at issue. we understand why this is an important ruling but what does it mean for the inmates themselves? >> well, the united states has a history of incarcerating more people in this country than any other country in the world. and we have individuals here in philadelphia who have been serving decades in prison. in fact, philadelphia is home to the longest serving individual in the country serving thisç mandatory life without parole sentence. he has been in prison for over six decades and all of these e are -- many of th

i agree with the supreme court.e president could make the decision to reduce taxes by 20%, i wouldn't support him doing it through an unconstitutional executive order and that's what the supreme court ruled on. that said, i do believe we need action, not just on the immigration problem we have now but what awaits us if we don't begin enforcing our laws and i've outlined for two years now what that should look like, which is a step-by-step approach by proving that illegal immigration is under control and i honestly and truly believe if you can prove that to people, they are going to be very reasonable about what you've done here for someone that's been here a long time by the circumstances i've just outlined. >> your chosen nominee -- i guess not your chosen nominee. that would be you. but donald trump, the approximate earn you're going to vote for, he's going to build a wall. if he goes through with everything that he says he's going to do and he wins, he's going to build a wall, deport 11 to 12 million undocumented

supreme court decisions today. first in a 5-3 decision the supreme court struck down portions of the texas law that would have placed new restrictions on abortion clinics and doctors. in the majority opinion, writing the majority opinion, judge steven breyer wrote this: the surge center requirement like the admitting privileges requirement poses few if any health benefits for women and poses a constitutional right on their un with that we are back with the panel. george? >> to pick up where clarence thomas was 78 years ago. 1938 the supreme court began the process without any warrant in the his industry or text of the document of giving us a two tier system of rights. it would be fundamental rights that the court picks and prefers and lesser rights. and all fundamental rights of which abortion has now become one would be subject to strict scrutiny whenever any government action affected the exercise of that right. given that, as settled law as it now is, it was not surprising that the restrictions on abortion clini

on monday, the supreme court struck down provisions of a sweeping anti-choice law in texas. stice anthony kennedy joined stephen breyer and all three women on the court in rejecting the restrictions as an undue burden on access to abortion. the supreme court ruled against provisions requiring abortion clinics to meet the costly standards of hospital-style surgery centers, and mandating that doctors obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. already, about half of texas' more than 40 abortion clinics have closed. if the court had allowed the provisions to go into full effect, advocates warned it would have left texas with about 10 clinics clustered in four metropolitan areas. amy: the impact of monday's landmark ruling is already reverberating throughout the country. on tuesday, justices rejected bids by mississippi and wisconsin to revive restrictions on abortion doctors matching those struck down in texas. meanwhile, alabama's attorney general has announced his state will stop trying to defend its own "admitting privileges" requirement for abortion doctors in wake of

the new action was filed six days after the supreme court issues its decision in this case. urt of appeals said it would only consider evidence in the trial record in rendering its decision, and it held that the evidence in the trial record was speculative, that there wasn't a sufficient basis to conclude any doctor would be able to obtain admitting privileges and any clinic would be closed because of the requirement. >> you made allegations concerning those same claims. is your argument that you have allegations on a facial challenge, and the results against you, that all you have to do is comie up with new evidence and start over again? >> no, your honor. the evidence must be material and it must be newly developed. so newly discovered evidence wouldn't be sufficient. if it was evidence that was available at the time of the first, but the plaintiff merely hadn't discovered the evidence or bring it forward, that wouldn't provide the basis for a subsequent suit. but evidence after the suit that is material to the claims does provide sufficient basis -- >> and what's this key

like a way to minimize the life term things that requires a constitutional amendment expands the supreme court to maybe 21 members. am i right that it would simply need an act of congress? guest: you are right. you're not the only one to stop this. courte to be known as the packing plan. soundlyticular plan rejected it because it was meddling in the affairs of the other branch. host: up next, we have robert colligan from the method, georgia. you are on with adam liptak. caller: i suggest you use the word ideological as opposed to political in describing the court. as you pointed out before, these are very difficult issues. i am an attorney. i have been trained, as we have, to look at both sides of an issue. not everyone concludes equally on things like search and seizure, privacy, so on, and so forth. that is reflected in this election cycle. there are people who have, i hope, honest, but different views on these issues. it is no surprise that on these very difficult issues, nine people appointed by president of different philosophical ideologies, and yes, political, will have different ideas.

i nominated judge merrick garland to the supreme court more than three months ago, but most republicans so far have refused to even meet with them. they are allowing partisan politics to jeopardize something as fundamental as the im patientality and integrity of our justice system. this is an election year and in election years politicians use words like amnesty in hopes that it will whip up votes. keep in mind that millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country. ancestors put in the painstaking effort to become citizens. we don't like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to american citizenship. here's the thing. millions of people who have come forward and worked to get right with the law under this policy, they've been living here for years, too. in some cases, even decades. so leaving the broken system the way it is, that's not a solution. in fact, that's the real amnesty, pretending we can deport 11 million people or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money is abetting what is really just factually incorrect. it's not