supreme court where today is the first day of the new supreme court term. and lawrence hurly is here at our table to tell us about it. he is supreme court correspondent for tomple son reuters. guest: good morning. host: the recent piece. what are you saying here? guest: this is the first supreme court term since the -- the first full term since the administration came in, in january. so they've had some time to adjust their legal positions in some of these big cases that hang towards the court, including one of the cases being argued today, the very first case of the term, a big employment case where the obama administration had sided with employees and the trump administration has now switched its position and is supporting the employers. host: tell us more. implingts this is a case whether guest: this is a case whether workers can group together to file class claims against their employer through oshtration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. this has big rep cushions for workers because if companies are allowed to prevent them from m

. >> the new supreme court term began today. here's an update on some of the cases before the court from "washington journal". where t >> 's 8:00 a.m. and a live look outside the u.s. supreme court were today's the first day of the new term. lawrence hurley is at our table to tell us about it. he's a correspondent. thank you for being here. the trump administration is in the spotlight as the u.s. top chord return. >> this is the first full term since the administration came in january. they've had some time to adjust their legal positions and some of these big cases toward the t court including the very first case of the term, where the obama administration sided with employees in the trump administration switched. >> this is a case about whether workers could be prevented from grouping together from filing false claims with their employer. this has a big repercussions for workers. it would make it harder for workers to bring these claims, at least that's what the lawyers say. with the court being the court maybe likely to side

and the supreme court agreed with us, 7-2. so it was a pretty significant victory at the supreme court. and over the years this -- the case, tinker v des moines, has become perhaps the second case to brown v board of education of importance to public school students because it said that -- i'm going to read the exact quote and get it right here. i have it written down. it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to either speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. and so our case, tinker v des moines, is the case which gave all of you public school students your constitutional right to freedom of expression. and the public schools are what they call a special environment so your rights to free speech are not the same in school as three would be out of school because the educational environment has to be there or nobody can learn anything, but the rule that they came up with and has now -- it's called the tinker standard, and it is that in order for the school authorities to tell

supreme court where today is the first day of the new supreme court term. and lawrence hurly is here at our table to tell us about it. he is supreme court correspondent for tomple son reuters. guest: good morning. host: the recent piece. what are you saying here? guest: this is the first supreme court term since the -- the first full term since the administration came in, in january. so they've had some time to adjust their legal positions in some of these big cases that hang towards the court, including one of the cases being argued today, the very first case of the term, a big employment case where the obama administration had sided with employees and the trump administration has now switched its position and is supporting the employers. host: tell us more. implingts this is a case whether guest: this is a case whether workers can group together to file class claims against their employer through oshtration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. this has big rep cushions for workers because if companies are allowed to prevent them from m

and so the supreme court's making fatal errors that are based on shoes that are usably. checkable you could walk up and say ok let's make sure this is accurate or not we're just going to let it go that preserves a little bit of a problem i would. guess and when you look at each of these case i mean you said there was a small a small sampling that propelled like a deer but when you look dig a little bit deeper and a little bit deeper into these cases these factual inaccuracy these are really important to the case so in twenty in two thousand and two you had justice kennedy that had noted that within the u.s. criminal justice system only so. states allowed during this case it was only six allowed death sentences for defendants convicted of rape committed against a child well that only six that was you know like all we can't do this is very important then we can't do that because there's only six and here you go the problem with that is that those crimes are punishable by death in military courts and under a law passed by congress two years earlier in the decision so what t

third, is it true that mussolini contributed marble to the supreme court construction? d if so, what is that tell you about the roosevelt court? >> that is for you, he said. [laughter] i have an alternative big three. instead of three big names, i think the three elements that "the"he constitution, constitution, were the first congress, the first president at the third-and-a half chief justice. the first congress was astounding, from the bank, to the judiciary, the departments, the terrace, the territories, the bill of rights. and i think every time we tried to think of, who were the great grace that made our constitution when it is, we forget that a department of government was one of those three. and isn't it wonderful that the intoitution, as it shaped its coherent self, was put together by the three departments, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. he wore shorts, apparently. in response to your first query. that is what he was wearing. [laughter] mussolini, i think that is actually true. also, they were throughout the interior of the supreme court, were f

us supreme court agreed with , 7-2. it was a pretty significant victory at the supreme court. i think over the years, the case, tinker v des moines, has become the second case to brown versus board of education of importance to public school students. i will read the exact quote and get it out of here. "it can hardly be argued that either students or stitchers -- teachers shed their constitutional rights to either speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. our case, tinker versus des moines, was the case which gave all of you public school students your constitutional right to freedom of expression. the public schools are what we "all a "special environment, so your rights to free speech are not the same in school as they would be out of school because the educational environmo be there or no one would learn anything. but the role they came up with -- it is called the tinker standard. it is an order for the school youorities to tell you cannot express yourself, they have to have the material and substantial reasons to believe that it will disrupt the educational environment

officials they just kind of like what the supreme court even though they also are a counter to the supreme court right you know and we have to remember that the. courts picking up these weird facts and not doing their job exactly i must not forget the supreme court is here to protect the constitution and the rights of americans not exactly protect the government that ideological all right is going to break hard watchers don't forget to let us know what you think of the topics we've covered of facebook and twitter shows that are coming up with. the director of association of american physicians and surgeons about the ongoing crisis in america don't want. to watch it. but. it was suggested. fairly strong when they were to tell. do chemicals that the advertising. really increase the risk of cancer. damaged in the launch a test or is it a shared skepticism they do not believe that that risk is as true by independent scientists and in the needs industry pinned you for this i received some compensation for my time as well as the others why is that the meat lobby definitely do like what we've bee

supreme court. i'm proud to be here to support the court's attempt to really define what is excessive redistricting, excessive partisanship. how do we measure it and how do we ensure in the elections coming up that we don't have partisan gerrymandering and that we outlaw gerrymandering. that is what were all here for. this court stands for democracy. we are here to promote and support democracy which is being ripped away by the american public. this is a critical day and i think all of you for being here to show support. let's return democracy to the people and take it out of the hands of the political parties. thank you, everyone. [applause] >> what do we want? representation. when do we want it? now. what do we want? representation. when do we want it? now. what do we want? representation. when do we want it? now. >> please join me in welcoming our next speaker. we have chief executive officer of the league of women voters, wylecia wiggs harris. [applause] wylecia: good morning, everyone. the leagu

is the supreme court. that even though judicial review is not necessarily listed per se it was understood. it was understood both by the federalists and by the anti-federalist. this is what a court did. they may not have done it often, but they did do it. wasven though jefferson with a man he would have appointed criticizing the marbury decision initially. come around tos accept judicial review because it is part of the law of the -- now and it was inevitable. he agreed it was part of the necessary structure of deciding cases. >> i guess i should weigh in. said national policy can be made with a private action and the rest of us need to overturn it. thatln's understanding was the supreme court decides this we are not going to form a mob we will respect the outcome of the court with those litigants. if we are not persuaded by the deeper principle that we cannot be citizens. we are not of likes to act on that same principle. mentioned two cases i how they came up with the first phase of the administration. st

as you know, the supreme court was unable to make either decision because not enough justices showed up to the court this morning. we are at a park in downtown nairobi, where odin got -- odinga supporters have flocked in support of not only the election that is going to happen tomorrow and awaiting the himself, whoinga has said he will speak in nairobi. he is set to deliver his final announcement about the election, directing his supporters about what they should use tomorrow. he has told them to boycott it, and he has gone back and forth toween urging protesters vote and to stay at home. evil are still flocking to the central business district to await what they are saying our final orders from odinga. rochelle: at this stage, is it fair to say there is no official confirmation the rerun will go ahead tomorrow? julia: there is no official confirmation, but there is no reason and no precedent that the election should not go on tomorrow. that said, we expect to hear from both the head of the electoral commission in the next half hour, and in the next few ands here from both odinga the

a look at the supreme court where this is the first day of the supreme court term. lawrence is here at the table to tell us about this. good morning. let's start with your headline from a recent piece. this is the first term. they've had some time to adjust the legal position heading towards the court including the cases today, the first term with the obama administration cited with employees and the administration switched the position. tell us more about that case. >> it is about whether the work can be prevented from rippingg together to file claims against an employer through arbitration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. if companies prevent them from making the claims, they make it harder to bring these claims come at least that's what the tc lawyers say. and with the court being the majority they would be likely to side with the companies in this case and the shrub administration's change in position could help with that. >> and that is just to get started. they usually take about 70 or so cases. they will still be adding some. they have

so the solicitor general's office told scotto told the supreme court that the governor. routinely sons of activists ought to make anybody laugh or know something about immigration and they told the supreme court hey you know we were team to bring people back when we've accidentally deported them and it turned out there were wrong guess what totally untrue totally untrue but that was the core of the decisions and they accepted those things as well government so this or this person said they were the checks and balances of this is. credible or i mean it really is that they would let these kind of like huge gaping holes through or the other one is that this is clearly political because what you have is a two thousand and twelve case again with anthony kennedy they claim citizenship checks the ones that were happening in arizona that were such a deal back and two thousand and twelve that were illegal because of the threat illegal immigrants face any use statistics say you know it was respond that despite the fact that these aren't authorized this is most populous county thes

supreme court. i am proud to be here to support the court's attempt to really define what is excessive redistricting, excessive partisanship, how do we measure it and how do we insure that in the elections coming up in the next year that we do not have partisan gerrymandering and that we outlaw gerrymandering. that's what we're all here for, that's what we all stand for. this court stands for democracy, we are here to promote and support democracy which is being ripped away from the american public. this is a critical day, and i thank all of you for being here to show support. let's return democracy to the people and take it out of the hands of the political parties. thank you, everybody. [cheers and applause] >> what do we want? >> representation. >> when do we want it? >> now! >> what do we want? >> representation. >> when do we want it? >> now! >> what do we want? >> representation. >> when do we want? >> now! >> please join me in welcoming our next speaker, we have chief executive officer of the

did not make it to simply supreme court with no valid reasons we know one is sick we know one had her driver's shots last night and was handling that and the other two appeared in court earlier today so it seems orchestrated especially according to opposition leaders the list seems to be a certain amount of uncertainty there even though the elections i should have to go ahead tomorrow. as shared you know what is the morgue like there where you are catherine it's very uncertain because even if the elections do take place tomorrow there are various various court cases that allow the opposition if they feel aggrieved or anyone who feels aggrieved to go back to the supreme court and have a substantial case against this particular presidential rerun so there's a lot of confusion in the air we might go into an election tomorrow morning people will vote and then the people who don't want to vote so how will the police react to people who don't want to vote we're seeing police not just an urban centers especially in western kenya we're not seeing them just in the urban centers but we'r

supreme court. will determine whether force -- congressional -- the case will determine whether congressional districts in wisconsin are unconstitutional. it is one hour 20 minutes. >> thank you all for coming out. my name is joann and i am the for common cause maryland. i'm not sure how many of you are familiar with common cause but we are a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of american democracy. chapters,er 30 state over one million members threat the country. common clauses one of three groups helping today's event. i also want to give a special thank you to all the groups who took different actions like filing amicus reefs and supporting the movements in a number of ways. a special thank you to all the volunteers who came out early and are hoping out today. with common cause maryland, to one of the two most gerrymandered in the country. the worst in the nation for how we draw our congressional and district lines. we cannot rely on elected officials to fix

in the supreme court out of the 113, four and now three out of nine, 33%. people certainly know that women are on the court. that's one of the points a you made. women are here to stay. you went on to the supreme court. your nomination went 50 days compared to what's going on now. what's your wish or desire or dream in terms of how nominations move through the system? >> before we get to president clinton, let me give big plug for jimmy carter. i said that women were barely there. that was for member of minority groups as well. jimmy carter, looked a the federal bench, he said, they all look just like me. they're all men and they're all white. but that's not how the great united states looks. people didn't look for. i am going to appoint members of minority groups and women not as one at a time curiosities but in numbers. he only four years in office. he had no vacant seats on the u.s. supreme court to fill. he literally changed the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. no president went back to the way it was. inspired to appoint the first woman to the supreme

, the inferior courts have no sound basis for following the supreme court's practice. end quote. her lack of respect for stare decisis is deeply concerning and raises serious concerns about her future conduct on the court if confirmed. professor barrett has also expressed a number of highly controversial political positions that could influence her ability to fairly hear and decide the cases that come before her. in criticizing the supreme court's ruling, upholding the affordable care act, for example, she wrote that chief justice roberts had, and i quote again, pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. end quote. her views on the rights of detainees are similarly disconcerting. in 2008 the supreme court held that non-u.s. citizens held at guantanamo bait were entitled to file habeas corpus positions to challenge their detentions. she argued in turn that the court's decision in that case was, quote, contrary to precedent and unsupported by the constitution's text, end quote. and that the dissenters, quote, had the better of the arg

honorable members of the supreme court. friends and guests. honor for megreat to take part in the celebration. theone 22nd anniversary of second circuit, and to present the hands lecture. known as thebe hand court in the 1930's and 40's. >> i am guessing, a number of them might have been disturbed by the name. disturbed have been bythe other examples given trevor and all of those. none of the justices were fond of those names. this has been hiding behind -- i was asking about the circuit judges. >> all of that audio is up for grabs. any circuit court does have video. they are subject to massive criticism. >> i am talking about the federal court. where the case began. the judge overstepped the boundaries. you had to take it to the supreme court. judge, istrict level wish they had been a little more aggressive. statute, there has been their generic views of the world and the law. you can bring into your background any decision you make. a person with a more libertarian background would have made their case in the first place. i think the lack of

or the supreme court and agnes let me ask you this and you all reference the court decision to say that there needed to be a second election but if something went wrong with the first election and then there's a determination to have a second second election can you actually fix what was wrong with the first election in such a short period of time. i think it was it was almost impossible within the time given by this print code of sixty days was almost impossible to to make to ensure that you know all the systems were in place to run a fair and credible election and that was you know that every kenyan felt that it was representative of their wishes so somebody the time period was almost you know unattainable. but you know we keep going on and on about who won who lost i think where we are right now the political interest me currently in i think is almost we need to ignore what happened on the eighth and so it's where do we move the country now we are where we are now how do we sit down and have you know mature dialogue where all kenyans are. involved or represented and move the country

was delayed in that she's been trying to sort that out and that was her excuse for not attending supreme court today we have two three other judges who it's really weird how they are staying away from court one is sick so they haven't been able to form the quorum so it's too many people especially supporters of the opposition this seems very orchestrated so there's a lot of questions around that and at the same time the electoral commission is under pressure still to postpone the election even though we're just hours away we have the observer mission which had tried to talk to the electoral commission and now they're saying like the commonwealth observer mission has pulled out its observers from from this particular election citing security and we have the e.u. observers who have reduced the number of staff or the number of people participating in this election so that's the current situation and basically opposition leaders are loading gun has already said he's going to boycott this election really without his participation will this vote have any legitimacy at all . that's a very big questio

i thought you were meeting just the lack of cameras in the courtroom in the supreme court. >> [inaudible] the federal court where the case began, and did the judge -- i mean, he overstepped his boundaries because you have to take it to the supreme court, and it was overturned. >> i did not litigate either of these cases. the district level judge, while been a littleave more aggressive in defending the first amendment, at least sort of said, there's the statute. yes, district court judges let their generic views of the world and of the law influence things, so i think it is a bias. obviously, you bring your background to any decision you make, and i would have wished that a person with a more libertarian background would have heard the case in the first instance, but be that as it may, i do not in peer that to the lack of publicity or lack of public scrutiny or sunlight. that judge got hammered for these decisions. the circuit court, i think, came around and did the right thing. in the redskins case, while the circuit court did not rule yet, do i think the bureaucrats might be subject to

do you know that the electoral commission refused the supreme court order? so it's as simple as that. >> glor: the charge from uhuru kenyatta supporters is that are you not going to support any election that you don't win. >> every side has its propaganda. and "the new york times" itself, after the election on august 8th, it wrote a scathing editorial against raila odinga saying he is making a lot of fus. >> glor: right. >> but what happened they withdrew the editorial when the supreme court ruled. we have this astonishing situation, we have kenyans who really live in fear in terms of speaking out openly on making decisions are taking up the cry for freedom and the rule of law. and yet we're not getting the support from the u.s. or the u.k. and the other countries. >> glor: it is a dangerous time for kenya. is there room for compromise anywhere here? >> there is always room for compromise, raila odinga has always said there is room for compromise, but there is no room for compromise in terms of not endearing to what the supreme court ordered. we want a fair

case began in as a judge do you feel like he overstepped his boundaries because he took it to the supreme court nose overturned? >> the district level judge, while i wish may have been a little bit more aggressive in defending the first amendment, at least they said there's the statute in the district court judges but their generic views of the world on the law so do i think it's a bias in a war sense, no. but i would wish a person with a more libertarian background would heard the case but, did as it may i don't think that the lack of publicity, that judge got hammered for these decisions. the circuit court i think came around and did the right thing. and the redskins case while they didn't rule yet, do i think the bearcats might be subject to -- yes to a think them in the executive branch i think i can get away with it because there's less scrutiny the answer is yes but i think that's true of judges? i spent so much my time yelling about why some trial court judge circuit judge cut it so wrong that it boggles the mind, i think there's plenty of -- on their board that decision. >> it's a great

he argued that was the basis for gun rights in front of the supreme court and the supreme court chosenot to take that but it wound up being part of this evolution where you have more an individual sense of gun rights and gun laws in hand throughout american history which is where it was for a century and a half. the supreme court four times before the heller case considered the second amendment and did not find it recognized in individual rights of gun ownership. most recently and most expensively in 1939, when they upheld the first federal gun law. it turns out people's views of this have more to do with their view of central government and individual rights than most of anything else. in the 30s there was no hesitation in polling. >> the historical debate has been well joined. now we are moving from dispute about the original understanding in the framing and during reconstruction. .. the bill of rights could piece by piece fly, take a long time to get these issues and throughout most of this did not have -- and did not see a lot of federal gun laws. and so of course as is true with

after the supreme court handed down to the pin in june all of the redskins face said it controls the disposition in the redskins case and the court must enter judgment for thread skins. it's been four months but the fourth circuit has not done so. is the court just taking its time or trying to distinguish the slants case in order to rule against the redskins. we'll explore free speech with our great panel of experts. jim caruso is the ceo of flying dog brewery since 1994. the third largest brewery in the country is known for its world class beers combined with distinctive label art by ralph stedman. jim is as passionate about the art as brew. in 2015 using damages awarded to flying dog in michigan's court battle he created a nonprofit to raise the first amendment principles. he's received awards for his business prowess and first amendment. he holds a bachelor's degree from the university of mysterious and a degree in brewing science from an institute. managing editor of the kato supreme court view, his interesting include constitutional law, legal and political philosophy and legal h

i will say the supreme court has never signed on to any of these differential treatment rationales. but i don't -- this court doesn't have to do any more work than it needs to in overturning sometime simonton and dawson by overdurning longo and door rack because it can rest on the rationale that my colleague mentioned, which is all that is being asked in that case is what the court deemed something fairly trivial. whereas asking a man to give up his relationship with a man or a marriage to a man is now something that we didn't know 20 years ago, or the courts hadn't recognized was an actual constitutional right. now we do. >> don't those cases, again, draw into question whether the but for test can be the -- or this case is wrongly decide. but they're not covered by the manhart test. >> and this court would be -- this court may very well need to -- should probably revisit devor and longo. it's pretty glaring that devore ra doesn't list price waterhouse. do we have to overrule those? i agree with your honor 100% there is something -- there is a differential between what the supreme co

that would be banned from the supreme court of sales in the capitalfor this from the supreme court of in the capitalfor this diwali, they have suffered. 400 factories in this area supply 80% of fireworks in india. delhi is usually the largest market. the supreme court decision means there could be major losses. and with the bank coming just a week before diwali, there is no new markets they can be found in time. the current owner of this factory says thousands of people will lose theirjobs across says thousands of people will lose their jobs across the says thousands of people will lose theirjobs across the industry. we are looking at a 20% drop in production. 90% of the pollution is happening because of other factors, and ona happening because of other factors, and on a religious celebration, you make is banned, and not talking about everything else that is happening on the other 300 city for days, is that just happening on the other 300 city for days, is thatjust as? and hide a major in the festive season, his company produced $150,000 of fireworks this year. he is ready shift most

a lot of people saying that there's a lot of interference within the sort of the supreme court interference of the electoral commission by politicians so that is certainly something that is being talked about here but again like you mentioned the election here is really between still reloading and. between those who are going to vote both were not going to vote or who are looking at a need a high voter turnout to be able to sort of legitimize he's win and the right loading the need the low voter turnout to be able to say look my supporters and there are millions of them have not voted they have not and those this when they will not and those who are looking at this president's secret are katherine thanks very much. the incrimination ceremony of the late thai king. it is the main part of a five day funeral service the ceremony is led by his son rama the tenth the time on it died just over a year ago after reigning for seven decades has more now from bangkok. the funeral ceremony lasts for five days but of course the main day he's the day when the late king jr day will be cremate

supreme court. he was appointed by madison in 1812. live coverage now of this event from the heritage foundation. >> we will be beginning momentarily. jessica does have note cards for those that have come from the legal strategy forum for the question and answer session. if you like some we'd be glad to get them to you. remind everyone please check that our mobile devices have been silenced or turned off as a courtesy as he prepare to begin. we should begin in about two or three minutes. mr. meese will introduce our special guest and john malcolm of our legal center will moderate the q&a following. force. >>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the heritage foundation center for legal and judicial studies and to our tenth annual joseph story distinguished lecture. as you might imagine the name sake of our lecture is that eminent juris joseph story. he was a remarkable patriot who carried out the founder's vision of a constitutional republic. before joining the supreme court he had quite a career of his own. he was a congre

would not have had appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the connecticut supreme court. that is how i -- because this get fromon 25, had you the supreme court of connecticut -- so that is all i am talking about, what is your tribunal and the kind of law? natural law is a source of law and you will find no quibble. >> the gentleman in the back. >> ok. >> my question is really

the result was hacked and manipulated the dinka took these fraud allegations to the country's supreme court and on september the first judges to clear the elections invalid and ordered a rerun within sixty days more than a month later the dingo withdrew his candidacy from the rerun saying he still didn't believe the election commission could ensure a fair race shortly we'll get the latest from katherine sawyer who's in the opposition stronghold of kisumu first let's cross to for me to miller who's in county for me what's going on where you are what's the turnout like today. we're looking to what the turnout was in all because they are certainly a number of people coming into this polling station in which is bored is the narrow we county but if you compare it to the number of voters coming through isn't as high as one of the analysts we spoke to previously had said that while there is an expectation that many do believe supporters and that's the governing party in kenya would come out many may not because it would be a foregone conclusion about who would win this election given that the main

as germany said, joseph story had a profound influence on american laws as supreme court justice and as a scholar. i'm honored to deliver a lecture in his name. i'm particularly honored to be when i look at the distinguished list of past speakers, justice kennedy, justice thomas, my colleague ray randolph, my former colleague judge janice rogers brown whom i miss greatly. i will admit that i've not been a regular attendee at the story lecture for the last two years because, as john malcolm of heritage knows, every year it seems to fall on the same night as basketball tryouts for the cyl girls basketball team i cochaired blessed sacrament school in d.c. this year i finally pulled rank and seniority and i moved the teams tryouts back tonight. so tonight i am with you. last night i was trying with limited success to get 47 -fifth and sixth grade girls to listen to me. [laughing] i will try not to use my coach voice with you tonight. the tryouts were good. we're going to have a good team. you are probably not here to hear about that, but coaching my daughters and the fifth and sixth grad

>> so in the 1991 amendment it was a supreme court decisions but importantly the supreme court has found ratification in circumstances where congress has rejected lower court decisions. laurel lard v. ponds. both of which reject expressly the arguments made by the eeoc here today. >> i understand your argument but wouldn't you have a more powerful argument if sexual orientation discrimination cases were cases that 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 it didn't do so with sexual orientation decisions. why are you saying we can make that leap to say even though they didn't talk about it they really did? which is what you're saying. >> so i have three points about that, your honor. the first is that's exactly what the supreme court did in laurel lard v. ponds where the case in the case was whether the a.d.a. had a jury trial. and what the supreme court said was congress was trying to incorporate the flsa and within the flsa context, lower courts --