opened up which a lot of people did not see coming, supreme court made a ruling in 2018 in the landmark heller case that said what? >> the supreme court, my favorite quote. there's a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i didn't know anything about the law, i didn't know how the decision might go, but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i like to -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to erase the second amendment from the united states constitution. unquote. i didn't know anything but i know we had won something. >> god rest his soul, justice scalia. >> rest in peace. that's what he will be famous for forever. >> and what was it like, i never asked you this. you go to the supreme court, it is i suggest it is an amazing american experience, understanding that, we don't get to see it on tv. when you're there, this case, it is lawyers and governments and cities and stuff, but it is all about the case comes down to dick heller. that's it. what was it like sitting in the front row with all

president ya mean immediately cracked down on and said and he defied the supreme court ruling and said he would not implement the supreme court ruling and this is where the standoff started the president ya mean then declared a state of emergency he had the military and the police stormed the supreme court and dragged the chief justice the chief justice of the country he had the chief justice dragged across the floor and jailed the chief justice and another judge at the supreme court and president ya mean refuses to comply with the supreme court ruling this is where the standoff started and the same evening president yama arrested leader of the political opposition president mahmoud of the you would rule the country before president the she'd president ya me had has also used the state of emergency for a page i would call it a purge on the purge on the political opposition a purge of the judiciary which is. to comply with him and a purge on the parliament and of the entire opposition so i guess let me share with you what jeffrey tweeted out jeffrey i picked this up of you to defeat the presidency of more days present state of

>> do you really think that the supreme court might give in to the pennsylvania redistricting phase one that might involve the supreme court's decision? >> i think it's a -- >> the pennsylvania redistricting case will the supreme court get into it when it's a redistricting decision under pennsylvania constitution? there's a stay application pending in which the argument is that the state supreme court does not have the power under the elections clause of the constitution to regulate the way in which the legislature exercises its legislative power to set the time, place and matter of elections. so state law does not necessarily bind the legislature when it's doing that function. it is an argument reminiscent of one made in bush-gore, if you want to go back and read that. but at the end of the day, there's enough precedent throughout to suggest that the legislatures can't be completely independent of control but, you know, who knows? we'll see what happens on the stay application. the response is due tomorrow, so -- chattering clashes of journalist and academic world took a great deal from the fact that -- that he referred it

supreme court. if you think about it in the term of the number of cases the supreme court hears each term, that is well over a full term's worth of cases just for these four panelists. i want to thank the supreme court for giving us so much interesting stuff to talk about today. and if there is one theme that seems to be emerging this term, i think it has to be redistricting. my colleagues in the press room will agree with me that it seems like there is one of these sort of homer simpson signs. it has been x number of hours since the last redisstricting stay request was filed at the supreme court the last one on monday. but we are going to start with a case out of maryland. over the summer, the justice was talking about whitford, a case in which the supreme court haerl argument in october and was discussed at the preview. the gerrymandering case. she said it was probably the most important case the supreme court was going to decide this term. after they heard oral arguments, apparently they couldn't get enough of partisan gerrymandering. so in early december they granted another case out of maryland. i

supreme court. he could think about it in terms of the number of cases the supreme court hears each term, that is well over a full term worth of cases just with these panelists. i want to think the supreme court for giving us so much interesting stuff to talk about today. ifif there's one thing the seams of emerging this term, i think it has to be redistricting. i know my colleagues in the press room will agree it seems like there's one of these sort of homer simpson signs, you know, it is been asked him of our since the last redistricting request was filed. the last one was on monday. we're going to start with the case out of maryland. over the summer justice ruth bader ginsburg wasth talking abt deal versus whitford which was a case in which the supreme court heard oral argument in october and if she was discussed the preview, the person gerrymandering case she said it was probably the most important case the supreme court is going to decide this term. after they heard oral arguments apparently couldn't quite get enough of partisann. gerrymandering so an early december they granted another case call

courts? >> the supreme court said so. the supreme court did that. it was argued there is no jurisdiction for various reasons and they decided on the merits but not sure there is a decision on that. would you agree on that? >> the specific justice ability question but one hopes -- >> you ought not to say. >> and the statutory argument, i guess the complaints you have about it seems to me i agree with my colleagues, doesn't sound like we can say to the president of the united states you are illogical here. you don't follow the procedure here. is your argument basically a structural argument, congress sets out a procedure and it is because you haven't complied with that procedure is that what you are saying? i am not understanding it. >> the first is the president has to 11802f has not made the requisite findings that this is detrimental -- secondly, what 1182s can't possibly permit is the president to contravene, to rewrite large sections of ina. and 11502a, and the 65s's overall purpose of moving, rejecting the historical practice of the united states

my colleagues pointed out before would that include circuit court decisions or only supreme court decisions? >> in 91 amendment was supreme court decisions, supreme court has found ratifications in circumstances where congress rejected lower court decisions, i'd point the court to the case cited. and both were expressly rejected by -- [inaudible] . >>. >> 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 who you to deal with specific acts. it did so in the 1991 decision, specific court decision, but it didn't do so with sexual orientation discrimination. why are you saying that 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 versus ponds. the question in the case is whether the ada had a jury trial right. and what the supreme court said congress was trying to incorporate the mlsa and in the flsa context,

it opened up a lot of people -- the supreme court made its ruling in 2008 in a landmark heller case that said, what? dick: the supreme court, my favorite quote -- there is a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law. i did not know how this decision might go. but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i liked -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to a race the second amendment -- erase the second amendment from the united states constitution. [applause] emily: [laughter] dick: i did not know anything, but i know we had won something. emily: god rest his soul, justice scalia. dick: rest in peace. that is what he will be forever famous for. emily: i have never asked you -- we are good friends, but when you go to the supreme court, and it if anyone has ever been there, it is an amazing american experience. you don't get to see it on tv. it is lawyers and governments and all stuff, but it is all about the case of just dick heller. that is it. what

supreme court. if you think about it in terms of the number of cases the supreme court argues, that is well over a full-time -- a full term for these floor panelists. i want to thank the supreme court for giving us so much interesting stuff to talk about today. if there is one theme that seems to be emerging this term, it has to be redirecting. -- redistricting. my colleagues in the press room will agree that it seems it is one of these homer simpson signs. it has been x number of hours since the last redistricting request was filed. we'll start with a case out of maryland. over the summer, justice ruth bader ginsburg was talking about gill v. whitford, which is a supreme court argument in october. she said it was probably the most important case the supreme court would decide this term. after they heard oral arguments, they couldn't quite get enough of bipartisan -- a partisan gerrymandering. in early december they wrantgranted another case out of maryland. it is the yin to the wisconsin yang. the wisconsin case is a challenge to the state legislative maps drawn by wisconsin's republican controlled senate.

supreme court cases. each week historians and experts join us to discuss the constitutional issues and personal stories behind these significant supreme court decisions. beginning monday, february 26th, live at 9:00 p.m. eastern. and to help you follow all 12 cases, we have a companion guide written by veteran supreme court journalist tony morrow. land mark cases, volume two. the book shipping and handling. to get your copy, go to c-span.org/landmarkcases. >>> treasury secretary steve mnuchin was on capitol hill to talk about the annual report. he appeared before the house financial services committee and addressed the recent stock market volatility, tax reform, the

supreme court issued the state. it didn't stay as it did last time -- >> courts just don't skip that stage. >> your honor, the supreme court didn't rule on the merits last time, and in considering the stay of the eo2, and i just -- >> rule on the merits with regard to a stay or a preliminary injunction. >> judge abe, -- agee, the court can judge this cass as it finds it. >> the supreme court did tell us and the nine inch circuit to act as quickly as possible, which suggests that they're interested in whatever we come up with. >> that's right, judge motz and i maintain to go back to reasons why -- >> or might by they're just interested in us getting done with it and getting something in front of them so they can rule on it. >> of course they could have ruled. they can do what it wishes. >> the supreme court will do what it wishes and should have the benefit of bothing this court's ruling and opinion, or set of opinions and what the ninth circuit does. >> your position is we shouldn't take anything from the fact that the supreme court granted the stay. >> he don't think you can, your honor. the second reason that the n

said the knesset the parliament is in jerusalem the prime minister's office in jerusalem the supreme court court is in the jaws of all of them in west jordan if i were a palestinian i wouldn't birth his speech so you know all the places selling us dollars a lot trumps in the same speech the future borders would be decided in the go. between israel and palestine he said the status quo on the karma sheriff is not going to change. this is basically can play to the palestinians. why have made such a big deal out of it let me tell you les have to quit because the news of the plane is coming and again are going to be losing the blame game again going to refuse to another player after kerry after clinton after all. so preempt enjoys a limb thinkings or jerusalem is is a case that will get a lot of support the other board in the muslim war and here is another supports morse of the war that is now war about syria a boat libya a boat yemen a boat dear. for germany in the middle east not much interested in the palestinians anymore. just last question to hurt a palestinian former palestinian foreign ministe

the federal court said that you can't do that so the term administration tried to go to the supreme court and see if it would have a more favorable ruling there in essence the supreme court has said we're not going to hear the case and it has to work its way through the appeals process in those federal courts what this means is it's a victory for those you know hundreds of thousands of people that are protected by dokka essentially the program was phasing out under orders by donald trump about march fifth was the deadline and what this means is those protections remain in place until the courts have another ruling or congress takes this up and issues permanent protections kimberly presidential it's also been meeting governors house and the from around the u.s. and its school safety that they're talking about. right what to do in the wake of the florida school shooting that has really gripped this country in a way that we've not seen with regard to school shootings in the past there has been a powerful student movement that has emerged as a result that is demanding protections so that this kind of tragedy may be prevented and so far there's been sort of a tepid response f

court. >>host: how did he get to the supreme court? >> maryland court of appeals that affirmed the maryland tax then they brought the writ of error to the supreme court september 1818 and the court took up jurisdiction and set for arguing and started to argue the following february. one historian discovered during his own research was that this was almost certainly a contrived case. he found information from the governor of maryland saying basically they set this up precisely to test the constitutionality of the bank. this isn't unheard of in history but again, interesting insight that the bank was a significant issue since 1791 and people wanted to resolve the question. >>host: whether or not there was constitutionality of the federal or national bank. 1819 the supreme supreme court was just moving into new spaces at the u.s. capitol building that was burned during the war in 1812 and we will learn more about those spaces in which the early supreme court operated here in washington. >> in this chamber where such landmark cases such as dred scott and th

say the knesset the parliament is in jerusalem the prime minister's office in jerusalem the supreme court court is in it goes a little all of them in west jordan if i were a palestinian i wouldn't birth his speech so you know all the places selling us dollars a lot trump saying the same speech the future borders will be decided in the go. between israel and palestine he said the status quo on the karma sheriff is not going to change this is basically can play to the palestinians demonstrates why they have made such a big deal out of it let me tell you les have tell you a secret because a new is a term plan is coming and they again are going to be losing the blame game their game going to refuse to another play after kerry after clinton after all may so say preempt so they preempt on joe's a limb thinkings or jerusalem is is a case that they will get a lot of support the our board in the muslim war and here is another supports. more stuff the war that is now war about syria a boat libya a boat yemen abodh iranian germany in the middle east zone not much interested in the palestinians any more. j

mention you say the knesset the parliament is in jerusalem the prime minister's office enjoy the supreme court court is in the jaws of all of them in west jordan if i were a palestinian i wouldn't birth his speech so you know all the places selling us dollars a lot trumps in the same speech the future borders would be decided in the gushy ocean between israel and palestine he said the status quo on their karma sheriff is not going to change. this is basically can play to the palestinians. have made such a big deal out of it let me tell you les had quit because i knew was that the plane is coming and again are going to be losing the blame game again going to refuse to another player after kerry after clinton after all sorts a preempt so a preempt on jaws or limb thinkings or jerusalem is is a case of we'll get a lot of support to our board in the muslim war and here's another supports more stuff to ward is now war about syria a boat libya a boat to yemen abode. for germany in the middle east zone not much interest in the palestinians anymore. just last question to hurt the palestinian former palestin

supreme court claim willing the order intrudes on their turf. the u.s. supreme court has not yet decided to take the case. on january 26th, the pennsylvania supreme court issued an additional order requesting data from the legislature things like current boundaries of all municipalities and precincts. the response of the republican leader, senate president joe scarnotti was to flatly refuse to comply claiming both orders from the pennsylvania supreme court, the supreme court of the state he's in that they were unconstitutional under the u.s. constitution. senator scarnotti is legally bound to comply even while he waits for an appeal from the u.s. supreme court. if he continues to refuse, the pennsylvania supreme court could the hold him in contempt and put him in jail. that kind of flagrant lawlessness appears to be a pattern with the republican party currently engaged in a full various institutions across the country, various institutions of justice that don't suit its ends, like, for instance, house intel chairman devin nunes is doing with his memo. we'll take a loo

supreme court. [inaudible] >> i think, i'm sorry pennsylvania redistricting case with that decision by the pennsylvania supreme court under the pennsylvania constitution. there is a stay application pending in which the argument is that the state supreme court does not have the power of the elections clause to regulate the way the legislature exercises the delegated power to set the time place so it binds the legislature for that function? so if you do bush versus gore but at the end of the day there is enough precedent of the legislature can't be completely independent with that stay application. [inaudible] >> the follow-up question is do i agree with other people in the blogosphere who gave significant that justice alito didn't give that response but i don't. i'd think this is the kind of case with this stuff at stake with the argument maybe not quite as implausible as people think and taken into consideration. >> has been referred to the full court? >> i don't think that is set yet but that is entirely possible. >> but it issues the merits opinion it is now they have the order but have not written the opinion ye

court for the. right to talk about the supreme court is there anything pending before the theme colt that could lead to the impeachment of the president. at the moment the supreme court is considering. the court by the former presidents. as well as the opposition leaders asking the supreme court to remove him from. considering. key embezzlement or two charges against no one is members of the legal. so they're not exactly sure that this is possible that the supreme court. will do it and to begin with then the supreme court even has the jurisdiction to do it because according to the constitution the power to. parliament. is going to be interesting to see what palm and can do about that and thanks so much for your analysis on that tonight mohammed. has already planes have been carrying out as strikes in egypt's northern sinai with the approval of president abdel fatah has sisi that's according to a new york times report says on months israeli war planes and helicopters have conducted dozens of raids inside egypt over the past two years egyptian forces have been fighting armed groups linked to i saw which have carried out regular attacks in the region more on this from i

supreme court. he has a statue inside the supreme court. he has been on a commemorative silver dollar, on four u.s. postage stamps, on the $20 treasury note in 1890 and 1891, and the $500 federal reserve note in 1818. he is the only supreme court justice to make it on our money, more than one postage stamp, have statues. there are four john marshall law school's, including the very distinguished marshall wythe college of law at the college of blame and mary. so marshall is our -- at the college of william and mary. so marshall is our great chief justice. if we look at the decision cited most by the court itself of the top 10 decisions cited most by the court itself, five of them are martial opinions. this is pretty impressive. he is the great chief justice. if you write about john marshall, you want to write about his jurisprudence and the way he establishes the supreme court as a central entity within american government, as a coequal branch with congress and the presidency. that we see in every text. we all learn how in marbury v. madison,

supreme court. once again, i want to show you of his address to the supreme court and how long it argued and have it decided. in 1854, it was decided by the federal courts, and then in 1856, it was argued for the first time before the supreme supreme court, and argued once again in the same year, 1857, and then the decision was handed down. 1857, dred and harriet were freed so ultimately from the first petition in the st. louis county court until the supreme court heard the case, it was 11 years. is that typical today? to go to the supreme court's? is that a long time? >> there are cases that go on for a decade today. but a freedom suit shouldn't have taken that long. it's remarkable in its length , really. and the fact it was contested so thoroughly, i mean, you have to realize, by the time this case gets decided, dred scott is an old man. he is as far as his value of a , slave, he is diminished value , he is sick, and yet, they are he continuing to fight. >> and his daughters. >> and his daughters. >> one of the keys to this story, about the daughters. not only do have they have a value as propert

court agreed with us. >> even had an executive order to the supreme court is an executive order to the supreme court above the standards as well. >> they stated for the individuals but to not have a bona fide cynic commute. microphone or talk louder. >> the district court agreed with us that the proclamation satisfies requirements of 1182f. i like to begin their. >> you mention the critical differences between the proclamation now an executive order can you delineate what you think are the most important critical differences? >> the procedural component to it. on the procedural side the critical differences it would involve a multiagency process for the president instructed these agencies to see what was missing. >> i did not read the if any into what the president directed people. he directed that certain countries be found to be banned. >> section today -- which country should be banned. >> in section two a of the order whether there is information that foreign governments are not providing. it didn't say that there is information. >> it didn't say if any either correct. >> with the proclamation direct

second, he continued a campaign that he pursued throughout his tenure on the supreme court of asserting that the supreme court was not only the dominant interpreter of federal law for the federal government, but also that he and the supreme court could say what the law meant even when, by doing so, they disagreed with the ruling of the highest court of the state. and that was really the dominant controversy of the time. and so it was quite important. >> mark killenbeck, you've written a book about it, so you think it's significant, but why should people still care about this case? >> the case provides a series of very important operations, one is the notion of the ability of congress to do that which is necessary and proper to effectuate the constitutional compact entered into between nation and states. one of the other ones people don't talk about as much is marshall's conception of the relative roles of the court and congress. judgments about policy, about what is necessary, are judgments that are going to be left to the congress. this is part of the formulation that is central to the case, let the end be l

refreshing lee candid about some aspects of sri lanka's tamil community got inspired by the style supreme court court where he says life is a tragedy in close up but a comedy in long shot and i thought that was apt for me personally and also the life of my community so i thought do a comedy and laugh with the film premiere was a highlight of excitement as the community celebrated the achievement initial reaction as many streamed out of the screening was positive i enjoyed it very much and i hope that then the bright future for me would you treat argo this is all more mean by all people far less some great movie because of the lack of industry professionals the director had to use more than eighty percent of crew from well established and prolific single movie makers in sri lanka for years tamil film goers in sri lanka have watched south indian firms adored its actors sung its songs and adopted its fashions breaking into an industry dominated for so long by south indian cinema is no easy task but the team behind kamali kings seem determined to take on that challenge one of the main challenges is to cr

no, but in this case you can see why these two women were successful at the supreme court, after the high courtruled they were entitled to compensation, and that was taken to the supreme court. 0bviously something has gone wrong when someone court. 0bviously something has gone wrong when someone is thought to have carried out over 100 such attacks and is not caught. 0bviously something has gone wrong with the investigation. so i do think that this landmark ruling is to be welcomed if it makes those investigations more rigorous, and means that less people have to go through this before arrests and proceedings are taken. john warboys is also on the front of the daily mirror. the headline says black cab rapist given £166,000 in legal aid. i presume he hasn't been given this personally, this presumably is going to his lawyers. a headline designed to his lawyers. a headline designed to in rage, but there is a legal aid syste m to in rage, but there is a legal aid system in this country, and as the decision by the parole board, which isa decision by the parole board, which is a different aspect of th

court but for the president really, nothing will happen until the circuit court, ninth circuit or the supreme courtided to take the case and that is when his argument would seem relevant because at this point with two injunctions by district court, no daca rolling the way president obama, nothing donald trump could have done being implemented at this point so he does need a favorable ruling from the ninth circuit or the supreme court to take the case. the conference on friday we did not here if they were going to take it friday night. at 10:30 it comes out and suspecting we might hear from the justices then. if they do take the case it would be on the term, decide it by june. a lot of people, experts i talked to say it is very unlikely because of where we are in the term and the expedited appeals, skipping a level, is very rare. only a handful of times in 70 years and usually there has to be an issue of public importance, imminent public importance can most two injunctions there is not any harm, the daca program is ruling the same way it was before. i don't know if they will take it that the longer

we will also hear from supreme court justice stephen breyer. the supreme court historical society hosted this 50 minute program in the supreme court chamber. james: i am pleased to welcome you to the fourth of our four lectures and the lecture series on supreme court justices in presidential cabinets. tonight's lecture will focus on james byrnes, who during his lifelong career in politics and public service served not only as a public justice on this housesbut also in both of congress, as secretary of state for president truman and as governor of south carolina among many other accomplishments. i have no doubt that this evening's talk by professor milkis will be both exceptionally interesting and educational. i would like to welcome and to express the society's deep gratitude to our host, justice stephen breyer. justice breyer has been a very good friend to this society during his 23 years serving on this court. he has joined us for lectures, award functions, and dinners over the years. in 2016, his lecture at our annual meeting touched on the relevant insights

whether it took the supreme court too long to get there can be debated. the supreme court has not always been a bigger as protector of free speech. some of the most awful decisions of the supreme court came in affirming convictions for sedition for outrageous speech. one of the cases mentioned in the book i wrote is a case called deb's versus united states. debs was a socialist presidential candidate in the early 1900s. he was basically prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for a harsh anti-world war i policy speech. , incarcerating a presidential candidate for a political speech. the supreme court upheld that. whether it took the vietnam war to break the barrier of national free-speech, i think it is a fascinating question of a sociological matter. i am just a dumb lawyer, i don't know i can answer that. >> debbs runs for president in 1920 from a jail cell. and gets a million votes. >> an astonishing story and an aspiring story -- inspiring , i will constitutional say resolution, but justice is coming to recognize the insights of jefferson and madison. that freedom of o

court law. but there was a technicality that a super majority was required. how did we get from there to the security? >> whenever there's a federal question, you can file for the supreme court by filing and that's what kearns did. he filed for a petition before the ohio supreme court and as we were talking about earlier, obscenity was an issue that the court was exploring quite tentatively so it caught their eye. we look back to the records of earl warren and tom clark and we find that eight of the nine justice on the court granted it so they really wanted to hear this kay. the one holdout was justice felix frankfurter. e wrote a decision called wolf v. colorado in which he declared that the fourth amendment was a ndamental freedom, as much protection as possible -- but he also then said, in -- this next paragraph, that the exclusionary rule could not be extended to the states. he didn't find moisture in that idea. -- merritt in that idea. frankfurter didn't want to hear this case. but eight of the nine justices granted you've review. host: and a couple of justices ha have joined since our last landmark case. the new faces on the court. -- art and whitaker and >> how did the court change at this time? >> you have the liberal branch, earl warren, william brennan, w

supreme court. it was in order to send it to the supreme court. if that had been where we stood, this case would have never happened. it would have been deep in the dungeons of the new york courts of appeal. just laying away with its $100 filing fee. what happened was that weismann took on another attorney. he was not a very famous attorney, either. although he had argued before the supreme court. frank harvey field saw the error and he actually got a justice to agree to let the writ of error go through. when i was alerted to the fact that weismann had been charged with practicing law without a license, i tried to find out when he got the license. i wrote to the court of appeals, charged with determining that, and i asked any name spelling that i could find, and i found that no henry weismann was ever licensed to practice law in new york. so essentially what happened, a, the case was very close to never getting to the court. and b, by the way, weismann never called himself an attorney. he called himself of counsel. he did get the right to argue bef

supreme court. but what does that tell you about the court system? it a very sad thing. lou: sad court system. frustrating often. joining us now, fa fox news legl aanalyst gregg jarrett, start with ruling of supreme court kicking back, a request for a expedite hearing. gregg: not a surprise, i would not read anything into it, they hate to litigate cases that have not been fully reviewed in the lower court, this one has not. if you want to make a lot of money always bet again the 9th circuit. lou: they have a reverse rate of 80%. gregg: they are awful. but also, congress, may act, it seems like a long shot, that would render any decision by court moot, they don like to decide cases unless they have to. lou: i got that number right. isgregg: see. lou: i surprised myself. gregg: other part, is daca unconstitutional? it is, it was passed by executive order by barack obama. he did not have the power, only congress has the power. >> even though it may be a technical decision on part of supreme court, to kick it back it 9th circuit court it gets reversed 80% of the time. kick it back to the supreme co

we will also hear from supreme court justice stephen breyer. the supreme court historical society hosted this 50 minute program in the supreme court chamber. james: i am pleased to welcome you to the fourth of our four lectures and the lecture series on supreme court justices in presidential cabinets. i have no doubt that this evenings talk by officer milkis will be exceptionally interesting and educational. i would like to welcome and to express the society's deep gratitude to our gracious host justicening, associate breyer? has joined us for innumerable lectures, what functions, and dinners over the years. 2016, his lecture at our annual meeting touched on the very relevant insights he the courtin his book " and the new law. his work appears twice in our society journal of supreme court history, writing on a cherokee indian struggle for their land and in 2010 revealing the dred scott decision of 1857 in its historical context. speaking of writing, justice breyer is a prolific author, having written or cowritten more than a dozen books and numerous court opinio

supreme court cases. each week, historians and experts join us to discuss the issues and personal stories behind the supreme court decisions. beginning monday, february 26 eastern. a.m. we have a companion guide written by a veteran supreme court journalist. landmark cases, eastern. volume 2. to get your copy, go to c-span.org. here's a look at our live coverage on c-span. house homeland security chair gives a speech on national security. the house returns after that to consider bills dealing with military sales to jordan and combating russian cyber attacks. votes are also possible on another temporary measure to keep the government funded. on c-span2, hillary clinton talks about the role of women in advancing human rights. at 3:00, the senate returns to consider the nomination of andrew yomku to be the under secretary of commerce. a vote on the nomination will follow. on c-span3, a discussion on the current political climate and the impact it is having on the senate. the house administration committee meets to consider a resolution that would require each lawmaker and its staff to adopt an anti-harassment and an

where a standoff between the president and the supreme court appears to be deepening security forces have reportedly broken into the country's supreme court building well. this happened hours after president abdoulaye i mean declared a fifteen day state of emergency political crisis was sparked by a supreme court order to release nine imprisoned opposition leader charlotte bellus reports. opposition politicians film outside criminal court waiting to hear the fate of their colleagues ill have made and have dualists and there they were arrested and charged with bribery upon arriving in the country on sunday a judge dropped the charges and release them they are two of nearly twenty politicians affected by a supreme court ruling that has created a political crisis in the island nation. doing in celebration on thursday when their top court called for the retrial of nine opposition politicians including exiled former president mohammed machine and the judges reinstated twelve employees who had lost their seats for siding with the opposition but one day of celebration soon turned into four nights of protests when president abdullah you mean refu

sentence centers and they block the entire way up and the supreme court has granted review in thecase . and just one little bit of supreme court statistical nerdish trivia, you will see this on the scotus podcast. statistically, there's about 8000 cases a year in the supreme court that take about 80 and a review for a verse about two thirds of the time. it's been a constant, consistent statistic so if you go to a major friend of the party and say that review, i predict they're going to reverse and you're going to be right two thirds of the time. i would point out that we have all lost our cases at the lower court so the fact the supreme court has granted review doesn't guarantee a win but it is a hopeful sign that we've been granted review in these cases. now, what we have challenged in this case is that this is just flat out compelled speech. especially to the medically licensed facilities. to me, it's just shocking and just a raw display of governmental coercion for california to force pro-life pregnancy centers to say hey, have you thought about getting an abortion? we want to bring that to your mind, here's the information

-- my supreme court favorite quote, there are a lot of interesting stories from the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law, i did not know how the decision might go, but when they announced it, justice scalia was going to read the decision. and this is my quote. here is what scalia said. "we are not here today to a race the second amendment from the united states constitution." [applause] [laughs] >> i did not know anything, but i know we had one something. -- won something. -- weave never asked you are very good friends, but i have never asked you this. when you go to the supreme court, and i know it is an amazing american experience. we do not get to see it on tv. when you are there, this case, with lawyers and governments and cities and all that stuff, and it is all about -- the case comes down to dig heller -- dick heller, that's it. what was it like with all the justices in front of you? >> the supreme court gallery for observers is not much bigger than his inner area. >> very small. >> very small. it was full of

supreme court is not going to take this. they have declined in recent days previous suits. what do you do? you're two-and-a-half months out. what are you gonna do? >> if the supreme court- we've got two lawsuits, one in the supreme court, one in the middle district of pennsylvania for an injunction. if they don't, i guess we've got a constitutional crisis on our hands. i'll be calling for, potentially, the impeachment of justice wecht next week. >> does that just inflame things, talking about impeachment? >> this is the legislature having to make sure that its prerogatives and its power are kept in place. what's to stop them from doing this again on any other piece of legislature? >> and shouldn't you be concerned about that? it's working out, perhaps, in your favor this time, but are you worried in 2020, 2030, what you've opened the door to could come back to bite you? >> no doubt, but what the republican party of pennsylvania is doing right now is no different than president trump questioning the integrity of a judge in hawaii because of his mexican heritage and his ability to do his job. >> don't bring racism into this. >> this is about partisanship. >> okay, that's