mark cases, c-span -- exploring the human story and constitutional dramas between 12 historic supreme court decisions. >>> number 759, earnest hernandez, petitioner vurz arizona. >>> number eight, rowe against wade. >> quite often in many of our decisions are ones the court took they are 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 who helped stick together because they believe they're rule of law. >>> good evening and welcome to c-span's new series, "landmark cases." tonight and for 11 weeks we're going to be looking at 12 cases that affect the country and society. tonight or case is marbury versus madison. it came about between two founding fathers who developed an imit inty. we have two gusts at the table to help us understand the story and importance of this case in our country's history. akhil reed amar is a yale law school professor. and also at the table, federal lit gator, cliff salone. the great six addison marshal and a battle for the supreme court. gentlemen, to s

and also at the table, federal litigator, former supreme court clerk and court observer, cliff sloan. gentlemen, to start we're going to listen to current chief justice talking about the importance of this case and after we hear his point of view we want to hear from you on why this case is significant. let's watch. >>> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. in his famous decision he wrote, basically look, we're a court. we have to decide a case. if in deciding the case we have to determine what the constitution means that's our job under the constitution. he regarded the constitution as law. that's one way that our constitution is different from a lot of others. many countries that have constitutions they're really just political documents. if you have a dispute under the constitution it's going to be resolved however a dispute is going to be resolved. maybe in an election if you're lucky, maybe by a force of arms if you're not, maybe by a mob. how ever a political dispute is resolved that's how they would resolve cases. john marshall in marbury v

so it comes up to the supreme court. i need to move my page down here. cutting to the chase is probably most people know the court lets part of the banta effect and it issues this opinion, which is -- there's a opinion not written by any one member of the court. in fact you can search through this entire law document here and look for the names robert kennedy, briar ginsburg and solder h other -- and soda mayor. and it says little of the merits and isn't focusing on the merits. usually when the court takes a stay application, it looks at a list of four factors and the first one is likelihood of success on the merits and -- it y gives a little talks about who is going to win. we'll see which side will be hurt more if they lose here and the broader protection of the interests and looking at the equities, probably again most ople know this but the court decided for people who had outside the country from those countries who had a connection to the u.s., what's called a bona fide connection to the u.s., the court said the equities -- the court said the travel

supreme court justice by abraham-lengthen. he was also the very first apointed justice this side of the mississippi river. >> mike ross, what's important to know about his background and the temperament he brought to the court? >> again, this is a man who married into a slave owning family, owned slaves. in kentucky he was briefly a doctor and wrote his medical school dissertation on cholera and the treatments were bar bear s. but he was the first to recognize it had a connection to water. he hated being a doctor because all his patients died. and then he moves. when kentucky saddles slavery ever more on the state, he says it's time to get out. and he becomes one of the founders of the republican party. and throughout his career he's going to be a radical republican. not a moderate, but a staunch supporter of lincoln and eventual a staunch supporter of reconstruction. and again he's someone who doesn't like lawyers puffing up a case with a lot of ancient precedents. and campbell's precedence is exactly the type of thing he does

supreme court and justice anthony kennedy. prior to the appellate bench appointment, he served as chief -- judge to united states claims court. and finally, a professor of law with a focus on federalism and postconviction review. he was at our panel two years ago. she clerked for justice anthony and kennedy on the u.s. supreme court. professor lipman joined from harvard law school where she was a fellow in lecture on law. keep the program moving, i have asked the panelists for speak than no more than seven minutes on one of the court cases as term,s a theme from the which will be left half the time for the town to engage with one another and to take questions. we will take questions from the live audience, questions on lawscotus,ing #uci all one word. we have changed our format for audience questions. rather than stepping up to the microphone, there should be cards that you can fill out. i will make an announcement that you should pass your cards to the il. -- aisle. they will be collected. you can direct a question to any of p

before has there been a filibuster of a supreme court nominee. neil gorsuch is going to be a very conservative justice. he is 49 years old. if you reminds on the court remains on 90 -- he the court until he is 90, he will be a justice for 40 more years. i think the key question is will the other justices -- it is that appointment that will ideologically shift the court. >> i have a couple things to say. i think it is remarkable. most new justices of the court talk about how it took them three or four years to feel like they knew what they were doing. he shows none of that. he has been extraordinarily assertive. confident. people call him aggressive. in justice kagan's first two years, she wrote several different opinions. neil gorsuch wrote that many as -- and his first two months in court. they were of the opinion on technical points. they challenged other members of the court on how they were doing things, when they were deciding. how they were reading statutes. indications,e watching an argument where he got some pretty firm pushback from justi

was none other than former supreme court justice john camp bell. campbell an alabama democrat, nominated to the court by democrat james buchanan, resigned as a justice to return to the confederacy. there he was named assistant secretary of war by confederate president jefferson davis, a position he held till the end of hostilities. campbell viewed the legal challenge to the slaughter house bill as part of a campaign to destroy reconstruction. indeed, at the very moment campbell was conting in the louisiana court that the 14th amendment had the broadest possible meaning he had also filed suit claiming that the newly enacted louisiana public accommodations law violated the privileges or immunities of new orleans opera house who's wished to segregate black tronz. it was catch bell's litigation objective to turn the republican's 14 amendment bense against their program of reconstruction. now in sharp contrast with catch bell stood justice samuel free man miller. miller was a former whig republican who was appointed to the court by president lincoln. in

supreme court. justices have been willing to come back to earlier cases, as they did with schenck fortysomething years later and say, i think the law and the constitution mean something different than what my predecessor said. host: rob, you are on. >> how are you guys tonight? host: we are great, thanks. >> this is a two-part question. , is that a german last name? host: what is your second question? speech --s freedom of what schenck began, how does that apply to today when you get into tabloids -- tabloid media, or texting and bullying? how is free speech protected today? polishtance, the catholic priest who came out as a homosexual -- this is not an american issue, this is a world issue. whopolish catholic priest said that the catholic church is riddled with homosexual people, that cannot marry and are suppressed, so they abuse other people because they are being abused. host: i am going to jump in. do you know anything about charles holmes nationality, and does it matter. excuse me charles sche

and the thwarting of those attempts by the supreme court up until 1937. what happens first, the story of roosevelt trying to impact the court. >> let's listen to franklin roosevelt in 1937 complaining about the supreme court in a fire side chat. >> the court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third house of the congress, a super legislature. as one of the justices has called it. reading into the constitution, words and implications which are not there and which were never intended to be there we have, therefore, reached the point as a nation. where we would take action to save the constitution from the court, and the court from itself. >> and what was that action? >> well, he tried to pack the court. he tried to pass a statute in which the number of justices would be increased. he could appoint justices until the older justices retired. and it got a very ill reception from democrats. he could have gotten a constitutional amendment to legit mate what the deal said. he chose not to do that. he chose to d

supreme court.s set up this major challenge to a centerpiece of what the administration thought of the war effort. it was extremely controversial at the time. it was not the first to get to the supreme court, but they dismissed the very first case in the hope that they could unanimously deal with the next one. schenck's is the first one they could decide on his death on the constitutionality under the espionage act. host: today, the supreme court might get petitions from hundreds or thousands of cases. they go through a process of searches, 75 or so are going to hear. how different was the process back then? thomas: there was a very different number of times. -- times someone could appeal to the supreme court. you say 99 times out of 100 they get to decide their own cases. it takes them some 7000 petitions. the judiciary was smaller and the number of cases was smiling. the supreme court was required to hear a case that was much higher. in the latter part of the century the justices got good at convi

he is a supreme court expert. or of numerous books on the court including "the supreme court: the personalities and rivalries that define america." thanks for being back. >> great to be back. >> paul cassell is with us for the first time. former federal judge for the district of utah from 2002 to 2007. served as u.s. associate deputy attorney general from '86 to '88 and now a professor of criminal law and procedure at the utah university of law. thanks for being here. >> thank for having me. >> what are the constitutional issues in the miranda case? >> well, miranda settles or tries to settle a question that's been around the country for several hundred years now. the question is how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when they're trying to get information from that suspect? and what sorts of rules are going to regulate whether confessions can be used in court. >> as we have talked about in the series, so many amendments to the constitution concerned criminal rights, rights of prosecution. what is i

the supreme court historical society and the supreme court fellows alumni association hosted the event. >>> well, good evening to everybody. i'm jaer lib in. i'm a vice president of the supreme court historical society. delighted to welcome all of you here to this very interesting program we're having tonight. before we get too far into it, however, i must ask everybody to be sure your cell phones, tablets, whatever you have are totally off, because otherwise it does interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. thank you for that. and we're here tonight with a program we're coresponse organize with the supreme court fellows alumni association. we're delighted to be a coresponse or with them. the program was brought to us by several people from that organization. i want to be sure i get them right. stephanie new bold, matthew did he chess any and elizabeth woodcock, who really came up with the idea for the program, and we're very happy to be here to present it to you. we're also particularly happy to have as our host this evening justice brieier, who will be speaking to you in a mi

supreme court.et me introduce you to our two guests. i should tell you before i did we've been enjoying talking about the case on the set. i think dollree mapp would like it because she was a careful character. meet carolyn long who wrote the book on this case. its sub title is guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. she is a professor of policy and public affairs. renee hutchins is close by here in washington d.c. maryland university law school professor, codirector of the appellate and post conviction advocacy clinic and also a former justice department attorney. she is working on a book called "learning criminal procedure." a textbook. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> nice to meet you. let's start with the basic issue in this decision. what is this case -- what did it ultimately become about? >> so what is really fascinating about the mapp case is what it started out as is not at all what it ended up as. it started as a case about obscenity and pornography and it ended a

waxman has argued 33 cases before the supreme court and has tried and argued dozens of high profile complex civil and criminal cases in federal and state courts across the country. so now i'm sure after all that you're ready and i am, too, it's my pleasure to invite dr. dalin and seth waxman to the stage. gentlemen. [ applause ] >> this is a pleasure. >> it's so good to be here. >> good evening. i'm seth waxman, this is the guest of honor and the author, david dalin, rabbi david dalin. we couldn't hear any of the introduction because we were being held in a secure location. >> it was great. >> good. >> but the reviews are terrific. it's already tending on twitter. before we start let me just say i think i will -- i have about four and a half hours worth of questions to ask you. >> oh, good. >> but i'm going to limit myself to about 45 minutes and then -- >> sounds good. >> -- assuming i can keep track of time which i'm not very good at open it up for audience because i always find these things people are here because they're interested, they have particular questions and we have a great fon

supreme court historical society and john marshall foundation co-hosted the event. >> we're delighted to welcome you here to join us in celebrating the 215th anniversary of the appointment of john marsher will to the superior court of the united states. this evening is a joint venture between the supreme court historical society and the john marshall foundation. this is not the first time that those two organizations have partnered. as an example they joined forces to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court. the caption of that particular evening was a rousing lecture by justice scalia about the importance of john marshall to the history of the court and the history of the country. justice scalia was a grand friend of both the marshall foundation and the supreme court historical society. i hope you will join me in just a moment of silence to remember justice scalia. thank you. so we are grateful this evening that the court chief justice robert and his colleagues allowed the supreme court historical society to continue using this courtro

supreme court. me introduce you to our two guests. i should tell you before i do we have been enjoying talking about the case on the set. i think dollree mapp was like that, quite a colorful character. meet carolyn long who wrote the book on the case. it is called guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures, based at the washington state university at vancouver, a professor of politics, philosophy and public affairs. welcome to the series. >> thank you for inviting me. >> renee hutchins is a law school professor, codirector of the appellate and post conviction advocacy clinic, she is working on a book called "learning criminal procedure," a textbook. thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> so let's start with the basic issue in this decision. what is this case -- what did it ultimately become about? >> what is interesting about the mapp case is what it start at is not what it ended up. it started as a case about pornography and ended up as a case about whether evidence should b

in 1938, that's what the supreme court held. and the reason the case ended up that way was that the government the solicitor general decided not to argue there was no constitutional right to council in the federal courts at the trial level. if you wanted to have counsel you must ask and the defendant asked. so here is a major constitutional issue that is the meaning of the sixth amendment. which carries all the way through into gideon there's no discussion of what the original meaning of the amendment was. just an assumption it was meant to provide free counsel in federal cases. >> the criminal justice act, which actually afforded money for court appointed counsel wasn't passed until 1964 by the united states. did it create any personal problems? you know, it's interesting that the first congress enacted a statute allowing court appointed counsel to be thinking in cases of treason. dealing with this in a statutory way is a long history. >> each of you has have experience with people who have had mixed results with the kind of law

and this is a joint program between the supreme court historical society and the fellows, alumni program. both of these organizations were the brainchild of chief justice berger. he joined the court, berger, he quickly noted that every other branch has ancillary organizations, i mean, think of how many the president has. i mean, really. we haven't even thought of having a securities and exchange commission. in -- well, these program -- these organizations help promote their work and in '73 the judicial fellows program was established. it's now known as the supreme court fellows program to bring mid-career scholars to the court, very good idea. we have the federal judicial center, the administrative office of the courts and now the sentencing commission and we go to all of these different organizations and they serve a year long fellowship where they learn something about judicial management. i've often wondered why do the law schools not have two or three people who are directly engaged in that. it's a very important field and everyone thinks that on the bench and also quite a few lawyer

supreme court.and that was the case that was heard by the supreme court in 1856, and again in 1857 when they actually rendered their decision. it is is interesting that sanford, his name is on the case. and he doesn't come into it until 1854 when they go to the federal court. and sanford is a key player in that we know the scotts were returned to slavery by the supreme court. yet they were set free in this room just a couple of months later. and the way that happened was that sanford died in new york state. and upon his death the ownership of the scotts reverted to his sister. and technically to her husband, dr. chafy who was from massachusetts. he was an abolitionist and a sitting member of congress at this time. so suddenly he finds that he's the owner of the most famous slaves in the united states just literally overnight. and he wanted to divest himself of the slaves as quickly as he could before the press found out basically. what he did is he sold the scott family for a token dollar to one of

constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759, earnest miranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> we hear arguments number 18 roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took 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 who have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to c-span's "landmark cases" where we've been learning more about the cases of the supreme court that affected the court and the country. tonight, 1961 case of mapp v. ohio. an ohio woman refused to let the police search her house without a warrant. all this evolved into a case that was one of a series in the warren court that changed policing in america. we welcome you with us this program and hope you've been with us throughout the series as we've been learning so much about the supreme court. let me introduce you to our

but if you're on the supreme court, the buck stops here. this is it. ou then are making the decision that is the final decision. >> and not you. >> rose: the court is. the district judges sonia was talking about, they are the real power holders in the system because they sit alone in a courtroom. you can't get out. you're stuck with that judge from the day the complaint is filed until the final judgment. then you go up to the court of appeals. so sonia lost a little power when she went to the second circuit because -- >> i lost a lot of power. ( laughter ) >> you were not the lady of the manor anynor, you had to carry one more mind to prevail and in the supreme court the magic number is five. >> rose: yes. so i have often said, when i write for the court, it's never as if i were queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues and reflect those in the opinion. >> rose: how much do you think your life as a litigator has influenced your sense of supreme court justice? the historic role you've played. >> i am sensitive to what it's like to be

supreme court. he is a colonizationist, someone who advocates a former slave cannot live peacefully in the united states and they should be removed voluntarily to places like liberia. he is a catholic living in the large diocese of maryland. i think most important for thinking about dred scott, he is someone who has fought for many, many years about the question of free black citizenship even before we get to 1857. it is a question that has been on taney's mind since the 1820s and the 1830s when as attorney general he had already begun to work out his theory about black citizenship, and we know his conclusion is that black people cannot be citizens of the united states. >> well, the background to tell you more numerically about the country at this point, the total population of the united states in the 1850s was 31 plus million people. slaves, who counted for an additional 3.4 or 4 million people, and there were about half a million free blacks in the united states. did the free blacks, for example,

but, courts respect to the supreme court.ustice department would have to show that colleges are not following the guidelines set by the supreme court. not just that they happen disagree with the idea of affirmative action. oft: what is the history affirmative action in the country? how did we get from the point where there's discrimination to the point how far colleges can go is being controlled? guest: you have to start in the era of segregation. many colleges banned black students and effectively banned latina students. --ot of fire education latino students. a lot of higher education was mostly white. aesident lyndon johnson gave famous speech about how you cannot say a race is fair if one of the contestants has been in shackles. he introduced this idea that you a persononsider where comes from and their relative advantages and disadvantages. colleges started to create programs. it wasn't enough to just say we welcome all students were all applicants. they had to recognize the severe inequalities that were faced by those s

in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories be behind 12 supreme court discussions. >> 759, ernest hernandez, petitioner versus arizona. >> we hear arguments, number 18, the rowe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions were ones that the court took a 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 who help stick together because they believe. >> c-span and the national constitution center welcome you to landmark cases, our 12-part history series exploring the people and the stories behind some of the supreme court's most famous decisions. tonight you're going to be learning more about the dred scott case of 1857. let me introduce you to our two guests to tell us more about the history and the impact of this case. chris bracey is a george washington university law school where he is a professor. also the coeditor of a book called "the dred scott case, historical and contemporary perspectives." welcome to the program. >> t

and ruth bader ginsburg has now surpassed brandeis and frankfurter in terms of longevity on the supreme court. steven briar had a very interesting -- he served in the 1980s as the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee. both he and ruth bader ginsburg were known as voices for conviviality on the court. he got along with everyone. as counsel for the judiciary committee, he was able to get along famously with the late ted kennedy and orin hatch on the other. they agreed on their admiration and respect for steve. when he was nominated in the last days of jimmy carter's administration to the federal bench, they came together to n finesse his nomination. anyone who can get along with orin hatch and ted kennedy must be going something right. ele elena kagan started out working for the clinton administration. she became the first woman and jewish woman dean of harvard law school. >> i guess if she was the first woman dean, she would also qualify for the first jewish woman. >> she followed in the great steps of -- she became the next jewish solicitor general in 2009 and the first woman solic

it's now known as the supreme court fellows program. to bring mid career scholars to the court. very good idea. we have the federal judicial center. the administrative offices of the courts and then the sentencing commission. they go to all of these different organizations and they serve a year long fellowship. where they learn something about judicial management. i have often wondered why did law schools not have two or three people who are directly engaged in that? it's a very important field and everyone thinks that on the bench. also, quite a few lawyers do as well. so anyway that's a thought. but to complement the fellows program, the supreme court alumnis association was established in the year 2000. it has a network in which you can remain connected and continue to exchange ideas. they have as their goals supporting and enhancing the fellowship programs efforts to improve public understanding of the judiciary. and i hope you're involved in that. that's so important. people don't know about it. high school students don't. college students don't. we can all help there. they

. >> supreme court justice elena kagan sat down with retired chief justice of the massachusetts supreme court to talk about their legal careers and the legal career of sandra day o'connor. this is just over one hour. . good evening and thank you merrill. car where ig in my was a relatively recent partner at my law firm. hadlawyers and our spouses returned from a firm outing to prescott, arizona, which has the oldest rodeo on the fourth of july. of course aware of the rumors that then judge o'connor was being considered for the supreme court, we asked her some questions. as you would expect, she was dismissive of the rumors and quickly turned in a conversation to another topic. as i drove that morning, i turned on the news. just in time to hear president reagan say, she is truly a person for all seasons. part ofssed the first his remarks and i had not heard him say who she was. during the rest of his remarks, he did not repeat the name. i of course was pounding my steering will asking, who is it? only when a reporter began speaking, i knew she was sandra day o'connor. i reacted the way m

it's also, as some of you might know, there was a basketball court at the supreme court and the recipient times weekly, some of the clerks and other members of the court staff go up and play basketball. and i thought basketball was more my style. so i went and played basketball. the basketball court at the court, until a few years ago, was basically, the floor was basically concrete. this meant, really you could not play for an entire year without seriously injuring yourself. and one day, it was my turn. of i towards some kind ligament or tendon or something like that and i was hobbling around, i was on crutches for several weeks. one day, i was at the court and i was walking down the hall with my crutches, making my way very slowly and justice o'connor was coming the other way. she stopped and she said, what happened? and i said, you know, i tore a playing basketball. and she looked at me and she shook her head very slowly and she said, it would not have happened in aerobics class. [laughter] that's my justice o'connor story. [laughter] [applause] but i love justice o'connor and so it's