supreme court. how justices decided several landmark cases and discusses the debate over this lecture't -- is part of a series hosted by the society of arts in palm beach, gay: i known you all agree that this series has had incredible speakers. [applause] : this morning's douglas and judge ginsburg, is a gifted american who has led an exterior life. there are 12 regional circuit courts. we, in florida, are in number 11, and that includes florida, georgia, and alabama. senior judgeg is a for the district of columbia circuit, the seat of our government. the d.c. court is often referred most helpfulond court in the united states, second only to the supreme court. he was appointed in 1986 by president ronald reagan. it's interesting that in the recent decade, more supreme court justices have been nominated from the d circuit than any other serious -- single source. for example, the late justice judge ruth bader ginsburg, no relation to our speaker today, justice thomas, and chief justice roberts, to nam

he took it to the supreme court of the united states. d thus began the train of events that led to the decision by the court on june 4, 1962, to hear gideon's case. supreme court justice arthur j. goldberg recalls the impact of the gideon letter. >> mr. justice, what happened when the court received the gideon letter? >> when a letter is written to us from a prisoner in a penitentiary, state or federal, and he claims, as mr. gideon did, a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, we regard that letter to be an appeal. it may not be called an appeal by the prisoner. but we deem it to be an appeal. that letter is circulated as gideon's letter was circulated to all of the justices. we do not do anything in our court by divisions. everything that is done is by the whole court. mr. gideon's letter raised a fundamental problem. a fundamental problem that the court had been dealing with for many years. not to its entire satisfaction. and that is, is a man in an american court, accused of any crime, capital or otherwise, entitled to the pr

the supreme court. set to be heard, trump versus hawaii. david savage, is there any reason why the court save this until the last day? >> it is a big deal. this case has gone through a series of cycles. this was the first controversy of his presidency. the travel ban came up the first week. it has gone through a series of iterations. the short answer, the third version came out in the fall. it was changed, struck down in the night circuit. the supreme court agreed to hear it. they have a three-month time they agree to hear cases and then it is argued. they wanted to get this finally decided that they had to put it on in late april. host: what is the question being decided today? guest: there are two big arguments. one is that trump has overstepped his power under the immigration laws, and the law does not allow him to pick and choose countries and say no more immigrants from these countries. the challengers say this is about religious discrimination. word, this is a muslim ban. that is what the president

of a supreme court advocate. that's really the name of the game in the supreme court. i have argued cases where i got a very satisfying assenting opinion maybe four justices joined and they really nail it in your client still has a word for that. it's called a loss. it is the name of the game and it's pretty tricky to get to five out of eight especially when the court is closely divided. for over a year after justice scalia's passing the court was operating in that created a very interesting dynamic. just to run through how it affects the courts operations go back to the time of justice scalia's passing and the october term 2015 and immediately with the core down to eight members we had an impact on the case that the court was deciding. in some cases the court was basically fundamentally divided that they simply couldn't decide the case. probably the most prominent example of that was a case involving the first amendment and public sector labor union called friedrichs that the court had taken. think the public pe

it's very good that the supreme court ruled that way because that decision, if the lower court decision had been sustained, it would have a bankrupted the organization and stopped it civil rights advocacy. >> the reaction to the decision at the time, not surprisingly in cincinnati, it was from paige -- it was front-page news. but the new york times, in its reporting on the case put the story on paige 13. -- on page 13. was it recognized at the time for its importance as it is recognized today? >> i did not know that about new york times. law review did treat it appropriately as an important case. among lawyers, it was celebrated and recognize. >> we are going to talk about the legacy of brandenburg . we don't know much about the rest of the history of clarence brandenburg's life. he continued to be in angry person in april 1971. he was thrown out of the national socialist white people's party. in june 1971, he sued the cincinnati enquirer for its reporting. in april 1972, he was jailed for harassing a jewish neighbor by telephone. he continued being a frustrated individual who acted on

the supreme court announced this rule in 1967. the court recognized the sharp distinction between retailers with outlets, solicitors or property within a state and those who do no more than communicate with customers in the state by mail or common carrier as part of a general interstate business. the commerce clause the court held barred illinois in that case from imposing tax collection duties on out-of-state merchants who lack a meaningful physical nexus to the state. the court emphasized that he reaches any other result, the outcome would be virtual welter of complicated obligations on nterstate sellers. so the issue was quiet for a while. in 1992, the supreme court was faced with another attempt to conserve out-of-state merchants, this time by north dakota who tried to force out-of-state catalogue retailers to collect use taxes for goods shipped into the state. north dakota argued that the supreme court's decisions interpreting the dormant commerce clause had evolve and become less rigid and more permitting of state regulation,

her teachers to recognize to try to get her a supreme court clerkship but there was not a supreme court justice who would take a woman into his chambers nor would the court repealed justice's taking her into their chambers, no women, she wound up as a district court clerk and ultimately started her real career as an entry-level professor at rutgers law school. her break point came from when her women students asked her to teach a course in women and the law. he went to the library, better walk it off and she found these laws about treating women badly and started taking cases from the new jersey aclu. within months she was offered a job on the faculty at columbia which figured out they have no women on their faculty. and the american, the national american civil liberties union started its women's rights project and they invited her to when it for nine years. nine years, she had six cases that she argued and won that she did a brief but didn't get to argue because the lawyer wouldn't let it go. she had six cases she argued, she lost one, she had five victories of cases she argued and al

he has argued more supreme court cases since 2000 than any lawyer in or out of government. he has argued significant cases in the lower courts, walker versus cheney, u.s. versus moussaoui and u.s. versus brady but not to deflate things -- sorry. paul is distinguished lecturer in law at the georgetown university law center where he taught in various capacities in 1998. distinguished lecturer in george found university and served as senior fellow of the law center supreme court institute. ladies and gentlemen, probably foremost solicitor before the supreme court, in our lifetime, paul clement. [applause] . . we want to focus on where we are with the supreme court because we are really at almost perfect storm for making this one of the most consequential and interesting supreme court terms in a long time. in terms of the perfect storm we gather at this juncture. one is a new justice for this is the first full-term the justice has served on the court. the second thing is you have a new administration. we are still relatively new administration for this is the first full-term wit

and the supreme court used rights. factors are number one how broad is the first amendment objection. in hurley, these are some of the factors, is the objection just to a particular message or discrete event that they are willing to include the individual in which case the government has interest there. the other factors that the supreme court looked at in hurley, the supreme court looked like is there a market failure here that the government has to address here. is there a wide swath of businesses. and here, in jack's case, the government didn't introduce one piece of evidence nor could it have where there were bakeries offering to provide to provide it for free. those are factors that the supreme court has provided to us after something is expressive and whether or not those cases will be meritorious. >> print t-shirts for a local gay pride festival. a gay coffee in seattle asked them to remove. should the coffee shop owner be punished and are you concerned that the loir courts will have difficulties if this box is

the supreme court says that was a violation of free speech. at can we learn about how the court involving position on free speeches has been developing? >> a couple of things. one thing that's interesting about the brandenburg decision is although it involves the ku klux klan and burning cross, the court didn't turn on the speech that was created hate speech. it was like whether it was like that it caused violence. the rule establishing brandenburg is part of the greater evolution of the supreme court during the 20th century towards -- instead of having a balancing test about speech where you weigh the harm of the speech and the government's interesting in regulating it against free speech almost equally, putting the thumb firmly on the scale in favor of first amendment. in all of those cases involving, you know flag burning, which is considered extremely offensive to people and an argument that why should we protect that kind of speech, which is so hurtful to people, drawing on the principles of brandenburg where you start with as douglas says

including the supreme court. the supreme court judges have the golden opportunity to assure muslims, and the world, that muslims are here to stay and muslim rights are protected. thank you. >> we have our speakers here today. we also have the groups in support. we have the median communications mac or -- manager. and the senior communications manager for the institute for social policy and understanding. we will hear from an attorney in cair's national civil rights department. give more background and context to the report. this report indicates that the muslim van has succeeded in its purpose creating additional anti-muslim sentiment in the united states. the muslim been's purpose was to foment animosity toward the -- towards islam and the slums. that is what it has done. this report has laid out in clear detail that there has been an increase in anti-muslim incidents. there has been an increase in anti-muslim hate crimes. that not just the volume have increased, it is also their character. anti-muslim incidents

think about the holocaust survivors in the supreme court case. some of these individuals still have tattoos on their body from the mistreatment that they received during not to germany -- nazi germany. they were arguing to the supreme court that their dignity should protestszi -- nazi protesters to come to their state. i think we can all agree that hateful, ande and we would not join the protest. the supreme court unanimously protected first amendment rights in that case because they recognize that if we are not willing to protect freedom even when we do glee is a great and it is hurtful -- we deeply disagree and it is hurtful, the we are not able to attack freedom for all of us. we live in a society work the government can take freedom away from anyone. >> removed by the religious claim independently from the free-speech claim? how would it fair in britain which has no protection for religious freedom in the same way. should for-profit religious companies be required to list all qualities that violate? >> i am really worried about the state of r

that's why today we call on the supreme court to ensure religious liberties are granted for american muslims and we urge them to fight the unconstitutional muslim then. many of us will be rallying them and wish our attorneys and those that are representing many muslims will prevail. the supreme court has to ensure that religious liberties have been the foundation of the nation and will continue to be so by protecting them in the next hearing. we are here today to talk about the civil rights report. it is the only report that he and organizations put together to give him ideas about the status of the civil rights in the united states and they talk about offering stories of how american muslims feel and are treated because of their faith. in the past two years since the administration conduct of its campaign american muslims have been singled out has deployed the ideology to target the religious minority that is the muslim community in this tells the story of the targeting me see it in the increase of the number of threats and discrimination against mothers arms. the report talks about

constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court -- >> quite often in many of our most decisions are ones that the court took quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people. who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >>> good evening. tonight's landmark cases, 1965's griswold versus connecticut with a 7-2 decision, the justices in this case established a constitutional right to privacy, and set in motion expansion of privacy rights that continue to today over the next several decades. to give you a sense of griswold's continuing importance in our society we put together a short video that is modern day references to the griswold case. let's watch. >> griswold v. connecticut, which recognized a right to privacy in the constitution. >> i agree with the griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that.

it went to the supreme court. astice scalia said it was trespass and was obviously a search that required a warrant and justice alito said it was an invasion of privacy, which is what i had written, and we ought to be dealing with the privacy implications of technology more generally. very famous case recently was the microsoft case, and you played a significant role in that. would you tell the audience a little bit about this high-profile case and your role in it? this was theg: case in which the government challenged microsoft costs -- practices. they had a virtually monopoly on operating systems and had toaged in various practices secure and particularly to defend that monopoly that were really quite underhanded, and a district judge in the case had ordered that microsoft be broken up into two companies. because of recusal's, there were only seven judges. we remanded it to district court for a new remedy, but at that point, the government and microsoft settled, but it became an important case in the annals of a

in the landmark supreme court cases legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide, mr. duncan filed briefs asking the court to reach the opposite result and after the supreme court handed down those historic decisions, mr. duncan, who today expects to be confirmed as a federal appellate judge, claimed that the decision would jeopardize civic peace and openly questioned the supreme court's legitimacy. mr. duncan also represented the gloucester county school board in its effort to deny gavin grim, a transgender high school boy, the ability to use the bo boy's bathroom and he represented the assembly in a lawsuit challenging the law banning consistent with their gender identity and asking courts to allow government sanctioned discrimination in these cases, mr. duncan completely ignored scientific evidence, medical expertise. instead, asserting that transgender individual individue mentally ill. in one case he argued that there is no sound scientific evidence proving that individuals who identify as transgender are not delusional. in case after case, mr. duncan has defended

exploring the human stories behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took on to fight the unpopular. >> with go through a few cases which illustrate what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. tonight'sning, landmark case is the 1965 griswold first connecticut -- griswold v. connecticut. you a sense of his continuing importance in our society, we put together a short video of the griswold case. let's watch. connecticut,. which recognizes the right to privacy and the constitution. >> i believe marital privacy extends to contraception. griswold v. connecticut. >> back in the 60's, there was a case known as griswold v. connecticut. >> what's talked a little bit about griswold. >> what is it about griswold v. connecticut that gives the importance? we will learn about its history. masonessor from george puttinglatest is children's interests first. a researcher from temple university. sot is griswold versu importan

that's the supreme court. every other federal court owes its existence and its jurisdiction to the united states congress. now that's the constitution. so, as some have said, congress has the power to bring courts into the world and we have the power to take them out. we have the power to say, this is your jurisdiction and no more. or you will take on this area. so we created immigration courts and we do need them and we've got to have them make decisions much more quickly and that's one of the things i'm so grate to feel jeff sessions for. he's appointing great immigration judges, they're making decisions as quickly as possible, so they don't leave people in limbo for years like was done in the past eight. our prior to the prump administration. so making progress there. making progress there. since congress clearly has the power to set the jurisdiction for every federal court tribunal of any kind, then it's time to do what my new bill and i got the number and i appreciate the clerk putting in efficient efforts

the supreme court must strike down the unconstitutional muslim ban. it must send the message that the promise of the constitution will remain true for future generations. never before in our nation's history have reported anti-muslim hate crimes been as high in number as in 2017. throughout 2017 cair offices nationwide received almost daily reports of incidents, targeting an american who is muslim, or perceived to be muslim. dozens of americans were shot, severely beaten or killed. in most hate incidents, the perpetrators expressed the same anti-muslim slurs, repeated daily in mainstream media headlines and often by candidates and politicians. in the report, the section titled invoking trump, provoking fear, the unpresence debted nature of the 45th president as a symbol of hate, we see evidence that the 45th president's brazen display of animosity and prejudice hasem boldened those speaking to express their bias and made the very word trump an encapsulating and potent symbol of wide ranging racial and religious animus. both children and adults have be

this is why i say, the only one who can fix it is the supreme court.is why we are here to ask them to fix this problem of severe gerrymandering. >> if the supreme court rules against remain drink it would make it harder for politicians to unfairly diluted certain people in order to protect their positions of power. show less text >> i think this may be one of the most important cases the supreme court has seen on many terms. it is foundational to our democracy. you will see we are facing a crisis point in our democracy. people enough feeling that their vote counts. they do fully of are responsive to their needs and desires. they don't think politicians care about every part of the reason is because politicians have to protect themselves. this would be about making sure voters retained the power of the democracy. >> because of the equal protection clause, someday maybe the district lines will reflect the will of the citizens, not the legislature. when i can vote, it is nice to think i vote will be as powerful as anyone else's. equal protection clause wi

the schenck case with famous because it was the case where supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes came up with the clear andase the test present danger test. it sounds like a tough standard but as it was enforced by the court in that case, it allowed andrnment to punish suppress political speech it disagreed with. host: what more do you want to say about these cases? >> nadine: one thing that is interesting about the -- katie: when interesting thing about the schenck case and justice holmes' role in it, it upheld the conviction of butalist lead letters later hear dissented upholding the conviction of communist sympathizers. defense, --rs in aboutall these cases are the first amendment. we will revisit the constitution to the first amendment. it says congress shall make no --w establishe can either of you get our audience a little bit of background on what the founder's --founder's were thinking. katie: the founders considered the right to free speech essential to american democracy. for people to become informed to recognize their political power and recognize the importance of le

the supreme court. set to be heard, trump versus hawaii. david savage, is there any reason why the court save this until the last day? >> it is a big deal. this case has gone through a series of cycles. this was the first controversy of his presidency. the travel ban came up the first week. it has gone through a series of iterations. the short answer, the third version came out in the fall. it was changed, struck down in the night circuit. the supreme court agreed to hear it. they have a three-month time they agree to hear cases and then it is argued. they wanted to get this finally decided that they had to put it on in late april. host: what is the question being decided today? guest: there are two big arguments. one is that trump has overstepped his power under the immigration laws, and the law does not allow him to pick and choose countries and say no more immigrants from these countries. the challengers say this is about religious discrimination. word, this is a muslim ban. that is what the president

i think you see that not just in the supreme court, but in the lower courts. we will see if that trend continues, but i do think that might be part of it. and it was just a different era in the country. it was, and you say it so well and there was an article in the new york times about an academic study that shows that as the court and country become more polarized, justices are asking more questions to each other rather than the advocates. they are trying to persuade each other and argue their own kay's, which leaves less opportunity for open-minded listening and yet, it does happen and with the carpenter case, it was so interesting that in the powerful questions about property rights seemed to be reflecting recent about theons property-based theory in katz, which seemed in real-time to be introduced in courtrooms. maybe we will see in carpenter another change of mind. jamil: overtime the bench has changed. the bench used to be straight. now the bench has been curbed so they can speak to one another. right, you will see the justices talking to one another thr

supreme court. she did not do the arguing but she took it to the connecticut supreme court. she was later associated with the defense of the black panthers. she felt very strong about women's rights and access to contraception. >> our last in the cast of characters, is thomas emerson. >> he argued the case for the griswold legal team before the supreme court. he took over from one of the original engineers when professor harper fell sick. >> you were talking before the program started about the yale connection. so many aspects intersect with with yale. is it a coincidence? >> yale has been a preeminent law school for a great deal of time and probably, you could say known at this time for being unafraid. it did controversial things and this was indeed controversial. you have griswold married to someone from yale. you have dr. buxton on the faculty of yell, emerson on the faculty of yell. she had family who went to yale, so quite a few links. >> also, apparently estelle griswold would have a mean marti

his case went all the way to the supreme court.ast year karen korematsu wrote the "washington post" writing -- i believe we will soon see that are found to be unconstitutional . for morere we go to austinin, t, where karen korematsu joins us founder anand executive director , of the fred t. korematsu institute. welcome to democracy now! explain what happened to your father and why you see this so closely correlated with what has happened in the supreme court this week. , amy.d morning it is good to be with you. thank you for bringing focus to this issue and to my father. he thought in 1942 that the executive order 9066 that was hastily issued, i might add, by president roosevelt, violated and civil rights as americans. all due process of law was denied. he thought it was wrong as an american citizen to be incarcerated when he had done nothing wrong. so that is why he fought his case all the way to the supreme court. amy: and talk about what happened to you. mywell, i learned about father's work is actually in high school when my fr

he really did disrupt the institution of the supreme court and the role of the justice of the supreme court. >> having spent so much time, talk a little bit about his personality, how he came across and how perhaps that was different on the stodgy or image we might have all supreme court justices? >> i first met him when he was new to dc or he was newto the court of appeals . and i was just beginning teaching and we were at a conference we both sort of didn't know anybody and he was verygenerous, he gave me teaching notes because i was a newbie . and i decided when he got onto the supreme court that i invite him to my class, why not? and he said yes. and he came and then the next year i thought well, i'll invite him to lunch and the class. and he said okay and he came. >> and everyyear i kept thinking he's going to say . i can't keep coming your class because a lot of teachers in this country and if they all asked, you can't do that. but i decided that was not my role. i could just keep inviting him and i would understand when he finally would say i'm sorry sue, that's it. or at least

we may all pay a little more if the supreme court sides with the states in this. walk us through what's going on. >> the last time the supreme court took a case like this it was in the 90s. mail order was the thing. now it's about online sales. they're hoping to close a huge loophole. >>> to tax or not to tax. that is the question worth billions. online usually the answer is no. but in the store, customers are on the hook. why? that is because of a supreme court ruling that says states can only collect sales tax if a retailer has a physical presence in the state. a lot of online stores are able to sidestep the taxes. that ruling was from 1992 when the word online usually meant where you stood a checkout. now it's totally obsolete in today's age of e-commerce. but not everyone agrees. >> these small businesses are just getting started, and having to pay another tax will eat into their revenues. and be passed on to the consumer. >> reporter: the potential wind fall to states if the ruling is overturned? nearly $14 billion last year. also the retile industry leading

in cases like this, the supreme court is not obliged to take the case. equest, a petition and say, please take my case. the court has discretion to take it or not. in -- the warren era, the court took a lot of cases. today, this case might not have been taken. the 4-4 decision might have been enough to stop the decision. they would have waited for different case that presented more definitively by the intermediate court. but here, they took it. it was important. susan: while all this was going on, we will return to john tinker to tell us more about the reaction in the community of des moines. [video clip] john: we got hate mail. someone sent a homemade postcard with a hammer and sickle on it, accusing us of being communist. somebody threw red paint outside our house. somebody else, or somebody, maybe it was the same person, threw a brick through the front of our little volkswagen bug. one morning, my sister answered the phone and somebody said -- a woman told her, i am going to kill you. there was a talkshow host that did a late-night talk show here in de

those have been dashed with the supreme court ruling to uphold his prison conviction.tweet from one user, "it is a trial for the country." you see a cartoon picture of lula in a jumpsuit. "i am brazilian and i am proud of it." look at some support from the embattled venezuelan leader maduro. ice'hurtsthis 'injust hurtsl." -- 'injustice' my soul. he has several avenues of appeal. anchor: the british foreign secretary boris johnson is facing criticism once again, this time for remarks he's made about russia and their role in the nerve agent attack on the former spy sergei screwball -- sergei skripal. reporter: we know this is been blown into a big diplomatic row between the you can russia -- between the u.k. and russia. russia has gone to great pains to deny any accusation of being behind that attack. it seems they have a useful ally in boris johnson. they call him a "wildcard." johnson told the german media that scientists personally told him that russian agents were behind the attack. ceo haslem is the lab gone on record saying we never said anything like that come as

his case went all the way to the supreme court.ast year karen korematsu wrote the "washington post" writing -- i believe we will soon see that are found to be unconstitutional . for more we go to austin, texas, where karen korematsu joins us founder and executive director , of the fred t. korematsu institute. welcome to democracy now! explain what happened to your father and why you see this so closely correlated with what has happened in the supreme court this week. , amy.d morning it is good to be with you. thank you for bringing focus to this issue and to my father. he thought in 1942 that the executive order 9066 that was hastily issued, i might add, by president roosevelt, violated and civil rights as americans. all due process of law was denied. he thought it was wrong as an american citizen to be incarcerated when he had done nothing wrong. so that is why he fought his case all the way to the supreme court. amy: and talk about what happened to you. mywell, i learned about father's work is actually in high school when my frie

issues with constitutional limit on government as a part of judicial selection she readily argues supreme court cases she was zero's ex- fellow at the law center previously a locker to justice thomas and the d.c. court of appeals graduated harvard law school from duke university holds a masters degree in linguistics from michigan state. welcome carrie and thank you for being here. then we have elizabeth a legal fellow at the heritage foundation where she writes about cases before the supreme court. judicial nominations separation of powers and constitutional issues she has a podcast with everything happening in the supreme court and with her advocacy programs test pilot in the house of representatives on constitutional in her commentaries have appeared in the washington post national review online and fox news a graduate of george mason school of law and holds a bachelors degree in history from new york university we will start with elizabeth and she will talk about the appellate nominees on the trump administration and their performance the floor is yours. >> thank you i am here to talk about

i think you have seen that not just in the supreme court but in the lower court.e will see that trend continues, but i do think that might be part of it. it was just a different era in the country. >> it was. you say it so well. and there was an article in the nrkt recently about an academic stud dwri that says as the court and the country become more polarized, the judges are asking more questions of each other rathern than the advocates. it leaves less opportunity for open-minded listening, and yet it does happen. the carpenter case was so interesting. the justice had powerful questions about property rights, seems to be reflecting ome interventions, including a professor from chicago who wrote in block sbisa. they seemed to be introduces in are core rooms. maybe we will see in carpenter another change of mind. >> the bench changed. the bench used to be straight, and they have curved the bench request stices questions one another. they are talking to each other through counsel. >> that contributes to lots of conversation going on during oral argument. let's list

you can try to predict what the supreme court will do and they could supreme court will do and they could overturn "morrison" but you might be wrong and you wouldn't be the first to have made such a mistake. at the hearing i told the sponsors that i would put their bill on the agenda for the full committee to consider if they could negotiate some compromise language after they did a few weeks ago because i wanted to keep my commitment. the committee will vote on the bill today. as i've stated before, i have constitutional concerns about this bill. i agree with justice scalia that the prosecution of crimes is an executive function but also think it's clear -- and you folks know my reputation on this point -- that congress has an oversight role to play our constitutional system is premised on the separation of power cannot function unless congress exercises robust oversight over the executive branch. the supreme court recognizes as much stating congress's oversight powers are broad and that's a word from cases and that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absenc

for he went on to the supreme court. from any other person in america.tr the prosecutor cannot be fired for exercising the same power unwisely. the amendment has some additional defects. to appoint a special counselal and announces that the special counsel is not in fact subject to the day-to-day supervision by the attorney general of the united states. know is that personn subject. from the normal chain of command. the department regulations. there is a very meaningful difference between internal regulations.er adopted by an executive branch. to tie the hands of the executive. for congress to mandate how it is that executive branch charges these functions. the reporting requirement to congress. it requires the special counsel. in explaining the decision to prosecute for any decision not to prosecute. this is unexplained departure. from the department of justice which require the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a itilar confidential report provides no way to enforce this requirement. we are this legi

from jail, he wrote a letter appealing to the supreme court. >> he appealed to the supreme court and his principal argument was -- i have been denied my constitutional rights as i did not have a lawyer to defend me. >> initially, the sixth amendment right to counsel was not a right to a public defender but a right to go out and hire your own lawyer and be assured that that lawyer would be allowed to represent you in court. >> a series of so -- of supreme said courtsdings had to provide a lawyer to the accused in a could not afford one. >> in the state courts, there was no such requirement. >> in 1942, a case decided that accused criminals did not have a right to a state appointed lawyer unless special circumstances applied. >> no layman can conduct a trial in his own defense. so that the trial is a fair trial. >> the layman, a person who is not a trained lawyer, does not know how to defend himself. he does not know how to cross examine witnesses. how to make an argument. how to object. he is helpless. >> the prosecution has on its team the entire government. they had the police. and

supreme court. it defined the case. >> those of you who teach law should feel good about the effect this can have in your students. this started a brainstorm. a >> absolutely. this is the most exciting case to teaching criminal procedure. it inspires people to transform the amendment. you can translate in light of new technologies. that's what harvey schneider did. that's what c-span viewers should do with us tonight. >> we will hear more about the court overall. stewart is an important character. tell us about him. >> he served in world war ii and the navy reserves. often times, he was in dissent during the war era. in this case, in the majority, [ indiscernible ]. katz is known for concurrence. he had the votes. ultimately, a really influential came -- opinion command of this. >> you have written a biography on him. he is an important character in this case, why? >> he wrote the most important privacy dissent. i want viewers to go read it. and the onset case, you can get it online right now. keep

the same thing happens at the supreme court. ou remember, when they were short, they sent the decision back to the lower court. if you cannot get a majority to say you are wrong, we will leave your position intact. the same is true of the supreme court. if they tied, the lower court decision stayed intact. susan: how did it go from that to the supreme court? erik: someone has to ask the supreme court to take the case. the supreme court is not obliged to take the case. you make a request, a petition and ask to please take my case. the court has discretion to take it or not. in the warrant europe, the court -- in loss -- the warrant chief justice oearl warren's era, the court took a lot of cases. today, this case might not have been taken. the 4-4 decision might have been enough to stop the decision. they would have waited for different case that presented more definitively by the intermediate court. here, it was important. susan: while all this was going on, we will return to john tinker to tell us more about the reaction in the c

typically the practitioner for the government for the supreme court. or she is the lead appellate lawyer for the government, typically. occasionally they were argued before the courts of appeal in cases of high importance to the government. role -- ite his could have been that the case was up for a consideration for raleigh.tition he weighed in on behalf of the united states. presumably arguing that it should not be granted. katz mr. katz -- convicting mr. katz. theou spoke only are about warren court's legacy, particularly in the area of rights. q talk about the makeup of the courts and some of the alliances that were forming over the years. >> the core of the wine court was the alliance between earl warren and willie and brennan -- and william brennan. other liberals included thurgood marshall. mr. stewart was viewed as a butrist who went right could go either way. harlan hadn marshall a conservative wing. he dissented from several of the criminal procedural cases, as well as the voting right cases. then there was hugo black. appointed byiberal roose

the same is true of the supreme court. if they tied, the lower court decision stayed intact.an: how did it go from that to the supreme court? erik: someone has to ask the supreme court to take the case. obligedeme court is not to take the case. you make a request, a petition and ask to please take my case. the court has discretion to take it or not. the court took a lot of cases. today, this case might not have been taken. the 4-4 decision might have been enough to stop the decision. they would have waited for different case that presented more definitively by the intermediate court. here, it was important. susan: while all this was going on, we will return to john tinker to tell us more about the reaction in the community of the morning. -- of des moines. we got hate mail. someone sent a homemade postcard with a hammer and sickle on it, accusing us of being communist. somebody read -- somebody through red paint outside our house. somebody threw a brick through the front of our little volkswagen bug. answeredng, my sister the phone and somebody said -- a woman told her, i am

same thing true at the supreme court. e justice down, if they tied, lower court decision stayed intact. >> how did it go from that to the supreme court? >> well then somebody has to decide to ask the supreme court to take the case. so in cases like this, the supreme court is not obliged to take the case. you make a request, a petition basically and say would you please take this case? the court has discretion to take it or not. in the warren era, the court took a lot of cases. today, this case might not have been taken. a 4-4 decision might have been enough to stop this case from being taken and waiting for a different case. would have waited for a different case to presented it perhaps more definitively by the intermediate court but here they took it because it was important. >> while all this was going on in the legal aspect, we'll return to john tinker to tell us more about the reaction in the community of des moines where the tinkers lived. >> we got hate mail. someone sent a homemade postcard with a hammer and sickle

and that started what landed in front of the supreme court. the next day debbie was very upset so she called jack to say why did you do that? why did you refuse to make my son a wedding cake? and jack said i don't believe in same-sex marriage, it isn't legal in colorado, and it was against his religious beliefs. so from that facebook page it went viral. and a lot of support came out for jack than they were encouraged to file a complaint with the civil rights division and they agree there was probable cause of discrimination based on sexual orientation as a colorado state statute then it went to a hearing i represented them at that hearing and we want to hear that baker appealed to the court of appeals and the baker in his lawyers appeal to the u.s. supreme court and that is where we are at now. >> thank you for that statement of fact do you have anything to add stephanie? >> thank you for having me. b defend religious liberty i can't tell you how glad we were so this is a test case where there are feelings and i think that's why it is difficul