>> one of the most important raise the supreme court made corporation people if you will is simply to look beyond the corporation and throughout american history the supreme court has granted corporations expansive constitutional rights, often ignoring the corporate form saying we need to protect the rights of the people who come together to form the corporation and while that idea probably made a lot of sense in the early 1800s as corporations were spot-- small it's hard to know if the same idea makes the same degree of sense in a world where you have general motors, hundreds of thousands of shareholders and many hold only invest in the company for a matter of moments as a play on the market or does it still makes sense to break through the corporate form and see those people the need or should we try to separate the rights of the corporation from the rights of the underlying people. >> was this baked into the convent-- constitution in any way? >> the framers never considered whether corporations should have constitutional protection it never came up in any ratifying conventions and

it was defined by the united states supreme court. as the duties to which we owe to god. and you don't deny that the monument to the ten commandments is a religious monument. that is a reason the court said i could not display the monument because it have a religious purpose to acknowledge god and this is something we did not deny throughout the trial. there is no law. respecting that. there is a lot respected the establishment of religion. if you believe in separation of church and state and you don't think we should establish one religion over another. and you plant a religious monument. you have violated the constitution of the united states. it does not mean god the first thing our forefathers did when they wrote the first amendment they asked the president of the united states to declare a day at a public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts. especially by affording them an opportunity to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness. the first act was to knowledge god. i think the people fail to understa

supreme court. if you wanted to live a short life, retire from the u.s. supreme court. and so, justices have tended to stay for a very long time. my very favorite quote from thurgood marshall. toward the end of his tenure he was interviewed by the washington post and they asked him if he planned to retire anytime soon as he was in his 80's. he said, "absolutely not. i was appointed to a lifetime tenure. and i intend to serve every single day of that. not only that, i plan to live to be over 100 years old, and not only that, when i finally die i plan to be shot by a jealous husband." >> [laughter] justice bolick: that's quite the aspiration. nonetheless he served on the court for a good, long time. but of course, longevity has dramatically increased lifetime tenure. at the time of our nation's founding, the average age of appointment of a supreme court justice is about the same as it is today. it was age 50 and that time. however, life expectancy at that time was in the 30's. so, the average age of th

liberal hugo black and the new deal era who argued corporation should not have rights and the supreme court should take back some of these. >> host: when you look at the current court make up what do you see? >> guest: they currently have a very conservative court in one sense and we talk about a conservative majority on the supreme court. one of the things i found in my book although we talk about justices as being liberal or conservative or appointed by democrat or republican will we find women look at history is something that unites the justices most of the justices throughout history as they are generally business and whether they are liberal or conservative acanthus side between a just and capital. a phenomenon i study my book is the self conscious claiming of constitutional protections and the supreme court giving them constitutional protection to corporations. this was one manifestation of that larger phenomenon. >> host: "we the corporations" how american businesses won their civil rights. in your view what is the impact? >> guest: the corporate rights movement is one of the great

supreme court. but the first-ever independent. every other justice has been either a republican or a democrat. and so i'm the first who is not affiliated with a party. i am also the first justice to hang up on the governor when he called to offer me the position. this was not intentional. it was and i'm embarrassed to admit it in silicon valley of all places i'm a total te technophobe, i can't figure out to get off of one call and on to the other. my friends say the better explanation is i was exhibiting my view of the proper separation of powers. but nonetheless, fortunately for me, the governor tk my call when i called him back and offered me the position. i'm also the first member of the arizona supreme court and possibly any supreme court in the country to be openly inked. i among the many clients i represented over the years were the owners of a tattoo studio. in tempe, arizona, a place that houses a major university, so you would think that there would probably be some tattoo studio and these w

the supreme court reafarmed row and listed four factors. that must be considered before the court over turn precedent. one of the factors was a reliance interest. meaning the court would consider whether over turning precedent l hardship because people had planned their lives in reliance on the decision. in 2003, you wrote that in deciding to overturn precedent, reliance interests should, quote, count far less when precedent clearly exceeds a court's irn terp prative authority, enquote. give us an example of a supreme court precedent that competed the court's irn terp pretted authority? is rowe an example? >> senator, i confess that i don't recall the quote that you read to me and i think i would need to see it in context to fully address your question about that quote. as for your question about rowe, i think that the line that other nominees before the committee have drawn in refraining from comment about their agreement or disagreement or the merits or demerits of any supreme court precedent is a prudent one because i would commit if conf

it went to united states supreme court. it was held for the trinity tire case, and then our -- the majority opinion, which i did not join, but that has been vacated and returned to our court. so i can speak to my dissent, but i really can't go beyond that because, again, it is a pending case before us. i am sitting on the court right now. and that's my current job. so i have to preface my remarks with that. that being said, i did write a dissent in that case. i pointed out that the funds in that case were going to the parents, not to the school. so that was my first point. but i also said, and the primary focus of my dissent was the majority was interpreting or applying our constitutional provision and our state constitution that says that there can be no aid to religious schools, and they applied the plain meaning of that and said, well this is funds going to a religious school. and at that point, i took exception, and i said you can't in a religious clause case simply apply the plain meaning. you to go behind the words and

it's also, as some of you might know, there was a basketball court at the supreme court and several 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. and i towards some kind of 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 tendon 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

my calls a supreme court case as well. ultimately it led to appropriating emergency funds for the capital defender program. we had a practice of my trial court that the district court judge i'd ensure that folks represented think it's important that all sides have a seat at the table and that means a skilled advocate presenting those. >> i think it is important in cases that involved unsympathetic defendant such as those who failed to meet their child support obligations are those facing capital charges that we be systematically insistent. if i might, i appreciate your representation of state versus lewis of a pro bono client that helps overturn a unilateral decision to ignore the plea deal. how can you ensure that. [inaudible] >> i share the senators concern and up important representation for indigent defendants. the representation of doctor lewis is one of many are taking on an including some that i am taking on today. it's very important. in the federal system in the northern district of georgia we have a robust federal

several food security schemes that means millions of poor children now get free school lunches the supreme court of india and the high courts of the states. all refuge for people like us and our clients it's a place we can go to it's a place where. they can get relief from persecution. and it's a very quick remedy the indian remedy of public interest litigation is unique. his organization operates from this office entirely in all two hundred seventy lawyers social activists and academics work for gonzales across the country. their job is to defend people in a system that is often stacked against them. people like these farmers who have crumbled more than one thousand kilometers to seek legal help. mission they've mundell says the government illegally took over his farm land in the state of charge for an infrastructure project. he's still waiting for compensation. after meeting the lawyers here i am very confident that i will get justice for what has happened the truth will come out. with a policy with condit has had a long day and it's not over yet he kicks up a workshop on the legal framework o

my case was documented at the supreme court, a habeas corpus case. i am alleging that the hate crimes act, 245 and 241, may not be enforced by our courts in america from aspen, colorado to the court of appeals to the supreme court of colorado, 10th circuit, and now u.s. supreme court. my colleague on my right have discussed, what is hate? how are we interpreting the hate crimes act for violations? i don't see many cases where our rights as lesbians -- i would also include there could be a gender discrimination. you are so wise, and we appreciate your long hours in law school. any of you, i would address it to anyone that has a thought -- are we in america enforcing the hate crimes act that has been on the books? we know that in 1973, homosexuality was no longer deemed a mental illness and yet the judge deemed me mentally ill. there is a lot of questions we are addressing. >> these issues will not arise in masterpiece cake shop or any other court docket cases. i can tell you from experience that the obama administration civil rights division enforced t

talking of the new justices of the supreme court, talking about how we can square the doubts about judicial capacity, our concerns about re-constraining the court's ability to read however they want into the equal protection clause. our respect for the democratic process, and these things sometimes conflict, and that is the job of all of us in trying to carry out his legacy. >> thank you, shep. amy: thank you for having me. i am very glad to be here. in the paper, the chapter in which i base my talk them a i address the role of expertise, the use of specialized knowledge and methodology in just his earlier's opinions and especially in education decisions but others as well. here is what some of what i'm going to be saying or reporting about justice scalia and it might be intentioned with what shep has said which i think shows that justice scalia is not always consistent in the way that he treats expertise and here i'm referring specifically to his philosophy of deference to administrative agencies. so i think it is very important to keep that in mind, and i go into more detail in my chapter

it's interesting to be discussing immigration in the context of the supreme court because the supreme court doesn't typically grant a lot of immigration cases, therey ras thpically one or two, maybe three and not necessarily raising big constitutionalal questions. this year, the court has already agreed to hear three cases, of course the one that was referred to, arising from the muslim entry ban and two cases that were heard last year and then scheduled for re- argument in this term. jennings versus rodriguez. i'm going to mostly talk about the entry ban case although off a little bit about rodriguez as well. especially insofar as they might raise similar issues that are related. by way of context for people who may be less familiar with how constitutional issues arise, there is a long, there are two lines of cases that are somewhat intentional. on the one hand, going back to cases from the 19th century, the court has heldd that political branches have, therefore did deference in their area of immigrationn with very limited judicial review. this dates back to the late 19th century, t

and probably new justice of the supreme court. and how we can square, when i say our doubts about judicial capacity, our concern for constraining the court's ability to read whatever they want into the equal protection clause. our respect for the democratic process and these things sometimes conflict. and that i think is the job that all of us face in trying to carry out his legacy. >> thank you. thank you. amy wax? >> thank you for having me. and i'm very glad to be here. in the paper, the chapter in which i base this talk, i address the rule of expertise, the use of specialized knowledge and methodology in justice scalia's opinions and especially his education decisions but others too. and here is some of what i am going to be saying or reporting about justice scalia might be intentioned with some of what shep had said, which i think shows that justice scalia is not always consistent in the way that he treats expertise and here i'm referring specifically to his philosophy of deference to administrative agency. so i think that it

decisions. >> in the 91 amendment supreme court decisions but importantly the supreme court found ratification in circumstances where congress has rejected lower court decisions. i point to lower court versus pond which was cited in our brief, the supreme court did two things that are critical here which were rejected expressly the arguments made by the eeoc today. >> i understand your argument but wouldn't you have a more powerful argument if sexual orientation discrimination cases where cases in 1991 in the context of that specific act congress specifically dealt with, congress knew how to deal with specific acts, did so in the 1991 decision specific court decisions but didn't do so with sexual orientation discrimination. why are you saying we can make that leap, to say even though they didn't talk about it they really did. >> three points about that. the first is that is what the supreme court did where the question in the case was whether the ada had a jury trial, trying to incorporate the contact, lowered courts thought the supreme court, lower courts and only a handful of re

and the orders of the supreme court so it's quite a remarkable thing that you could have a court making an order in a single case on behalf of such a large section of people we've also fight cases on that victims that is to see big big men who wanted. by men who had been rejected as who goes on to speak and then a large number of the country reject god and he going on and you also find against those saying. treat hundred thousand farmers have committed suicide in the country you do lack of resources i like to wish you the most success with all of your efforts and once again congratulations it certainly is. much deserved award calling gonzales if you don't if you don't mind to see one more thing ok people of germany maybe have thought that he had contributed to our success because the people of germany support read for that word immediately or who have been our steadfast partners for a long long time thank you for the people of germany ok well thank you for that message as well calling us office for us joining us from go i thank you very much for joining us this morning now to som

and that a subsequent election. 0ne supreme court and that a subsequent election.set of standards. what should the next election look like, you should manage it, and what would it mean to have an election that meets the hurdle costa and then we can move forwards and hopefully have an election that everyone can accept the result of. good to have your thoughts. more now on the death of cardinal cormac mcconnell. thank you for coming in. what are your memories? i remember a very jovial character, a warm and welcoming person who got on very well with the people that he encountered. they liked him. he liked them. it did not matter if they were people in the pew or high up they were people in the pew or high up officials in rome for the back kind of any ability stood him in good stead in rome. it meant that he was able to make use of his influence. he knew the city and the workings of the vatican very well. he was brought on to various important committees in the catholic church in rome and it meant he had influence over the bishops who were chosen all over the world. wh

court chamber. this is one of three, one of three supreme and superior court chambers in which the court can meet. the dome here in the supreme court was actually meant to be over top of the house chamber, we believe, and it was brought here as they -- they were adding a fifth floor to the building. even as the building was being constructed in 1906 they were running out of space so they added more rooms on the top and moved the dome which was already in production here. this green stain glass dome was done by alfred god win. it's got basically a penthouse over top that let's light in over the sides. it's foe lit from the inside so on cloudy dates it's lit up. this room is the final room that violet oakley produced. she spent 25 years to -- the first commission she got was in 1902, these works were installed in 1927. she worked on the senate and supreme court at the same time. so, she completed the senate around 1919, 1920, and then went on and did these works for seven years. basically, you have violet oakley, the whole fries errepresents her idea of the revolution of law. it starts with the anti

he has the best selling book in the supreme court gift shop. supreme chef," that what he titled it? justice ginsberg: yes, his recipes. he was very popular with the supreme court spouses. they met quarterly for lunch. they rotated catering responsibilities. marty was always the number one pick to be the caterer. [laughter] charlie: it just goes on and on. [laughter] i have been in her office. when you were given an honorary degree at columbia, was at columbia? and you were saying -- sang to, -- was that at columbia? tell the story. justice ginsberg: that was a serenade. i have the list of honorary -- honorees. charlie: this is the one because -- the one they gave you because you had refused to be given a degree from the law school and insisted it had to be the entire university. the university capitulated and gave you an honorary degree and among that -- justice ginsberg: she was supposed to give me the degree i should have gotten. the one i spent two years at harvard for. i know i am going to sydney next to -- because they had us arranged in al

is he the best-- selling book in the supreme court gift shop. when he died. >> rose: the supreme chef s that what his tight sell. >> supreme chef, a election of-- . >> rose: his recipes. >> his recipes. marty was very popular with the supreme court spouses. they met quarterly for lunch. and they rotated catering responsibilities. and marty was always the number one picked to be cocaterrer. >> rose: it just goes on and on, folks, i'm telling you. i've been in her office. so when were you given an honorary degrea at columbia, was it columbia, i think, and you were sang to on his knee, was it columbia? >> oh, no, that was-- . >> rose: was that harvard. >> yes, the famous serenade. >> rose: tell the story. >> so i get the list of honorees. >> rose: honorary degree at harvard. this is the one they gave you because you refused to be given an honorary degree from the law school, insisted it had to be the whole university. the university cappity lated and gave you an honorary degree and among the people there was the great opera singer. >> and they didn'

jacob talked to you about a case that he hopes to get to the supreme court this term that asks the court to end compulsory dues nationwide in the 22 states that now have them. if he is successful in getting the court to take this case, we expect that by this time next year, compulsory dues will be a thing of the past. the court will have ruled that it is unconstitutional to make employees like rebecca to pay agency fees to support the union. the case i'm going to talk about is the next logical step. it is a necessary next step in making the choice to support unions truly voluntary. it is necessary because the unions are not likely to give individuals the right to decide whether they want to join the union or not. we know unions are determined to keep their members. through agency fees, they get millions of dollars each year in revenue, that they don't have to do anything, it just shows at their doorstep, so it would not be unreasonable for them to keep as many members as they can and to interpret whatever the decision the supreme court releases this year and as narrow a way as possible t

ahead with an independence the next week despite a ruling by iraq's supreme court suspending the referendum the court ruled that the poll be persisted to questions about its legality have been addressed the referendum will be held on september twenty fifth in the three provinces that make up the rich kurdish region as well as disputed territories the government of baghdad regional neighbors iran and turkey and the us of all. to be to late spring it could create instability from which i so could benefit for the apple honeybees that have bailed us the capital of the kurdish region in northern iraq and center site. more pressure to postpone the referendum this time coming from the british government the u.k. defense secretary michael fallon is here in erbil where he is meeting with kurdish president masoud barzani he was earlier in baghdad and he said from there that he was coming here to try to convince the kurds to postpone the vote he also said that the u.k. was firmly against it at this point now this comes after earlier in the day the federal supreme court issued a state order cooling for

he has the best selling book in the supreme court get shot. d >> is the supreme chef what it is called? >> yesterday and it is a collection of recipes. he was very popular with the supreme court. they met quarterly for lunch. they rotated catering responsibilities. he was always the number one pick to be the caterer. >> it just goes on and on. [laughter] i have been to her office. when you are given a honorary degree at columbia was a columbia? on his knees?ying was that a columbia? tell the story. list out of harvard. gave yous the one they because you had refused to be given a degree from the law school and insisted it had to be the entire university. the university capitulated and give you a honorary degree and among that the old there. >> she was supposed to give me the degree i should have gotten. one i spent two years at harvard four. >> they arrange us in alphabetical order. i had no idea that he was going to get up that he was going to get up and serenade me. and there is this wonderful picture. that a woman and ecstasy. to be so close

claims that the results had been manipulated in kenyatta's favor. >> jubilation inside kenya's supreme court. the court agreed that there was irregularities. >> for the first time in the history, a ruling has been made by the courts nullifying irregular elections of the president. >> the judges voted 4-2 in favor of the petition. the chief justice did not accuse of vote rigging but blaming the electoral commission for failing to transmit results. opposition supporters couldn't contain their joy. the entire nation had awaited today's rulings amid protests and violence but notes the opposition are celebrating. >> i believe this court of justice now. >> president kenyatta urged all sides to remain peaceful andnd said he would accept the court's ruling.. >> i personally disagree with the ruling that has been made today. but i respect it. reporter: kenyatta's tone changed by the time hee metet supporters laterer in the day. his crooks have decided to nullify the election he told an adoring crowd. under kenyan law, the authorities now have 60 days to organize a new vote. the electoral commission h

it was a case of a barrier that put these two women out of business and the supreme court said that was okay, it was okay because places were liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous. they made very light of it and then in 1961, when the court decided the case of hoyt against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered. her philandering husband humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young son's baseball bat in the corner of the room, brought it down over her husband's head with all her might. he fell, hit his head against the hard floor, end of their altercation, beginning of her murder prosecution. she was from hillsborough county, florida, didn't put women on the jury rolls. she argued that denies me the opportunity to be judged by a jury of my peers, my peers of course include women. roll call -- and the supreme court in another opinion said women have nothing to complain about, they have the best of both worlds, they don't have to serve if they don't want to, if they want to serve, they can go to the clerk's office and volunteer. and the exemption is pe

the supreme court said that was okay. it was okay because places where liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous. they made very light of it. and then in 1961, when the court decided the case of hoyt against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered her philandering husband humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young son's baseball bat in the corner of the room and brought it down over her husband's head with all her might, he fell, hit his head against the hard floor end of their altercation and beginning of the murder prosecution. they didn't put women under those rules. she argued it denies me the opportunity to be judged by a jury of my peers. my peers, of course, include women. the supreme court in another glib opinion said women have nothing to worry about. they have the best of both worlds. if they want to serve they can go to the clerk's office and volunteer. and the exemption is perfectly reasonable because after, the woman is the center of home and family life. you can imagine how

prepping for an important case lawyer collin gonzales is about to head to india's supreme court he's pushing for an independent investigation into the lynchings of about thirty people by him to which an antique ropes they were murdered in recent years for allegedly transporting cows or eating beef the rage against. against other communities and other religions is so extreme today. india is really on the brink of a precipice so that's a very important case that the supreme court is taking up today apart from handling politically sensitive cases gonzales is known as a defender of india's most vulnerable citizens he spent more than three decades campaigning and litigating to secure their basic rights. he's far from alone gonzales books with a team of young dedicated lawyers some have even given up lucrative corporate jobs his human rights law network provides free legal services to bonded laborers religious minorities refugees women and others go to the supreme court his petitions have led to some landmark rulings notably one of the directed india states to implement several food securi

say they'll go ahead with an independence vote next week despite a ruling by iraq supreme court. suspending the referendum the court ordered that the poll be postponed until questions about its legality have been addressed the referendum will be held on september twenty fifth in the three provinces that make up the oil rich kurdish region as well as this few territories the government of baghdad regional neighbors iran and turkey and the u.s. have all called for the vote to be delayed fearing that it could create instability which would help isolate hold of the i meet us more now from arab in the capital of the kurdish region. more pressure to postpone the referendum this time coming from the british government the u.k. defense secretary michael fallon is here in erbil where he is meeting with kurdish president must me he was earlier in baghdad and he said from there that he was coming here to try to convince the kurds to postpone the vote he also said that the u.k. was firmly against it at this point now this comes after earlier in the day the federal supreme court issued a state

the supreme court is aligned a trap administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees andstration request to block a lower court ruling that the travel ban allowed 24,000 refugees into the country before the end of october to do want to bring back our panelists who've had a chance to look this over little bit. any further thoughts? >> this is yet another rejection of the 9th circuit court of appeals, which has consistently gotten a wrong when it comes to immigration policy in the president's travel ban as well as his limit on refugees and so once again the president to a predicted he would win once it reached the high court has one once again. charles: let me ask you, because the order was written by justice anthony kennedy does that give you insight into how ultimately it may play out in the supreme court? >> it does, probably 5-4 with the newest justice neil gorsuch siding with the conservatives. he is fairly staunch conservative but kennedy is often the swing vote and the fact that he suggested that he sides with the conservatives. charles: but you are making a pretty i

it is interesting to be discussing immigration in the context of the spring court because the supreme court doesn't typically grant a lot of immigration cases and they are typically one or two in the last ten years and maybe three but not necessarily raising big constitutional questions. this year the court has already agreed to hear three cases. of course, the one that was referred to arising from the muslim entry man into consolidated cases but also heard last year and then scheduled for re- argument in this term with the ninth justice having been up pointed. i'm going to mostly talk about the entry man case although i'll say a little bit about rodriguez as well and especially as they might raise similar issues that are related. by way of context, for people who may be less familiar with cases with the immigration context there's a long oversimplified there's two lines of cases that have been contention with each other. on one hand dating to the 19th century the court held the political branches had quite a bit of are afforded quite a bit of difference in the area of their substance immig

hello i'm down in jordan this is our jazeera live from doha also coming up thailand's supreme court is expected to deliver corruption verdict against former prime minister yingluck shinawatra fled the country last month. changing gears saudi arabia would allow women to drive for the first time from next year. and donald trump says he'll go to puerto rico after being criticized for his lack of empathy in the u.s. territory hit by hurricane maria. iraq is over the kurdistan regional government to surrender control of its airports or face an embargo on international flights as part of mounting pressure on the kurdish leadership everett secession referendum on monday initial results show most people voted yes in the non-binding referendum but reports from. the rhetoric and threats continue and from both sides. iraq to me that at that i still is still occupying some parts of kirkuk and some parts of iraq i still is still a threat to the cities with some of our brothers in iraqi kurdistan a living we must not divide iraq according to or through all viral referendum that is completely rejecte

qualified by that supreme court for life. should be. brought difficult time for boggart on the political situation is born or die and. gordo week three ended by. the prime minister in the general election in. a roman catholic priest has made his first public appearance after being held hostage for four months by fighters linked to i saw in the southern philippines a priest was rescued in juarez city on saturday and the army stormed the fires console center inside a mosque tamil alan duggan has more from the mila. father cheat us of the noblest presented by the top leadership of the thing the military here at the headquarters in manila he was not allowed to taking questions from journalists but he issued a short statement he says that he is grateful to be alive and. he's asking for everyone to pray for him us taken on day one from a cathedral in our we city in the southern philippines he's the most high profile hostage under the mao tse group according to the philippine military his rescue means that the siege is almost over. and. more t

the supreme court said that was ok. because places where liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous. they made very light of it. in 1961 when the court decided the case against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered. her philandering husband had humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young son's baseball bat in the corner of a room. brought it down over her husband's had with all her might. he fell, hit his head against a hard floor. end of their altercation, beginning of her murder prosecution. she was from hillsboro county, florida. they did not put women on the jury rolls. she argued that denies me the opportunity to be judged by it jury of my peers. of course it would include women. the supreme court and another clip opinion said -- glib opinion said women have nothing to complain about. plato that the survey don't want to. give a want to serve, they can go to the clerk's office and volunteer. the exemption is perfectly reasonable because, after all, women are the center of home and f

welcome to the annual supreme court preview. i'm karis, vice president of policy and programs at acs. most of you likely know this is a national network of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers who believe that the law should be enforced to improve people's lives. here we are again. after a supreme court term that many felt was lackluster despite the delayed addition of the knife justice to the bench, we are looking at an upcoming term that promises the high-stakes that we had grown accustomed to in recent years. you need only look at the first two weeks of oral arguments to see what i mean. during the first five days the court will consider the constitutionality of the president's troubled man, legitimacy of wisconsin's redistricting scheme and whether american workers can be forced to arbitrate their disputes with their employers as opposed to having a day in court. some might say the stakes are too high and to lead us through the discussion today is a distinguished panel. we welcome a newcomer to this in no event. he