of this court or the supreme court. it binds itmatter, as precedent. there are technical issues on the scope of the judgment how that would work in a different context. judge elrod: the district court was modest in the extent it granted a stay of its own order pending all of this going on. what if that stay were not in place? what would happen? what is the government planning to do? mr. flentje: again, we think it is great that the state is -- the stay is in place. this is a very complicated program and multifaceted coming obviously. -- multifaceted, obviously. it is a significant part of the economy. that was important to the united states. as far as how compliance for the declaratory judgment that is final and on appeal, that raises competency issues. -- complicated issues. we are appreciative those do not need to get sorted out until there is a final ruling and the case is fully resolved and the appeals are exhausted. judge elrod: but the government believes or anticipates that it could find the act to be inseverable and do so only in certain states

and that's the majority of the supreme court. and that was binding. and that was binding on the district court. >> judge elrod: if you don't believe -- obviously you don't believe that the statute changed. its changes have made that not a possible reading anymore. >> that is not correct your honor. because the change was some thing congress could do. and it made clear, through this change, that there actually was even less coercion and there was before. again, remember, before, chief justice roberts said, even with coercion, even when faced with his major tax penalty, you still have a choice. >> judge elrod: isn't that the degree of coercion is an issue. any coercion is inappropriate unless it can be justified. it's not the degree of coercion, it's whether or not is tied to a revenue producing rule. isn't it? >> no your honor. that i don't think is the question here. >> judge elrod: that wqe essential to nfib. >> mr. letter: in withdrawing from that, the supreme court said there was a choice. you either shall maintain health insurance, or you shall pay

i am guessing that texas or -- they would take that to the supreme court. i don't believe this must go back to the district court. >> if we held hypothetically that it was severable, we would say district court, do your best severability in the first instant, take out your blue pencil. mr. letter: you would do that. >> and any other normal case you would send it back to the district court in the first instance to make the best stab at trying to implement the ruling that we made. that would either normal proceeding in 100 cases we have for this month. >> the court, the appellate court says the law directs that all the rest of the statute based on and i want to emphasize we are talking about the text, the 2017 statute that all the rest is severable. that is what we think. if you were going to find and strike down the individual mandate, that is what you would do. we think you have to do that. so there would not be any reason to send that back to the district court to say go line by line and figure out which part is severable. you would have ruled the supreme c

states court of appeals andthe district of columbia work for justice anthony and kennedy of the supreme court. he was in private practice. he was principal deputy associate general, attorney general at the u.s. department of justice. he was appointed to the united states court of appeals, 10th circuit in 2006, he served on the standing committee on rules and practice and procedure of the u.s. judicial conference and chairman of the advisory committee on rules of appellate procedure. he taught at the university of colorado law school and president john jay trump -- president donald j. trump nominated him to the supreme court and he took his seat. please welcome the honorable justicesuch, associate of the supreme court of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> it is wonderful to have you back. you were here test after you -- just after you were seated. it is nice to have you back with us. >> it is always nice to be here. it is a wonderful place. i encourage all young people especially to visit. it is across the mall from the air and space museum. [laughter] it is not that far

argument and those parties resolve or settle their disputes before the argument is -- reaches the supreme court, the court should view that as a good thing and we view it as good government. >> what about the justices' concerns that state and city laws don't apply to the hypothetical that may arise? is it up to those people to refile litigation for the hypotheticals that weren't addressed by these laws? >> i have rich right here i'll have him answer that question. [laughter] >> i wasn't even really listening to that question. i think that the point is the lawsuit was never about any of those kind of hypotheticals. they are things that if folks want to explore they'll have to be explored to determine what those new laws mean and whether there's any constitutional claim that can be made about them but it's never been part of this case and we don't know enough, really, for even a claim like that to be been framed and litigated and decided now. >> can you amend the current laws to try to prevent future litigation? >> the problem with that is they turn this into essentially an audit where they tried

it is not with the supreme court has instructed. we do not want this to go back to the district court. the district court has already ruled. >> it would have to back to the district court. some other thing doesn't happen in some other appellate proceeding along the way. it would automatically have to go back to the district court. >> what we believe you should do the statesld say have no standing. either uphold what congress did or at minimum, we say the law requires is you would say the individual mandate is struck down. that is so clearly severable because the text of the 2017 act made clear the rest of the statute remains in effect. >> you would have to go back to the district court and have all of your proceedings and all of the things that would normally happen. i don't think so. it is partial because i believe it depends on that, if you say that you hold there is no standing when a case ends. but if you hold that the rest of the statute is actually severable, i am not sure what else the district point -- court would have to do

the supreme court be doing and how much power should the supreme court have and should the supreme courtbe kind of exercising sort of a general veto over all sorts of legislation, which they do because it turns out and justices on both sides are responsible for this, you can make a puzzle constitutional argument that almost any form of legislation by late something in the constitution. it doesn't have to be written down. shall be county voting rights act section four was unconstitutional because of the principle of equal sovereignty which is it written down in the constitution, but you get smart folks together and they come up with good arguments. i think we need to have a very serious conversation about whether we actually want a group of unelected people to have that kind of power and whether there are any kind of constraints we can put in the power, i mean, right now i think a big problem is a huge amount of our debate about the membership that's really a proxy battle about abortion because we know that it matters a lot. other issues, also. we have to figure out is that the right inst

chevron itself was a decision by the supreme court overturning the left wing bent of the then d.c. rcuit judge 1980's which was throwing ronald reagan's deregulatory initiatives. depending on the makeup of the court making the decision -- there was this odd moment during the gorsuch confirmation hearings when senators were really criticizing him for his opinions, in turn expressing skepticism about chevron. what they were saying was they wanted to give rick perry, scott pruitt, betsy devos more power. if you have strong chevron deference, the agencies have more power. it is a bizarre thing to argue. this is not supposed to be a left-right thing. >> how do you think the trump administration is doing so far? >> the one interesting regulation which seems like a gimmick but actually has been successful is the rule that for every new regulation promulgated has to be withdrawn. that has worked. [applause] we have seen a slowdown in production, the pages on the federal register. if you go to senator lee's office on capitol hill, he has different stacks. one of the pages of bills passed by

the majority of these cases found that these life-saving measures with thestent constitution, supreme court have upheld the constitutional rights we hold dear, including the right to live free from gun violence. now, the nra wants the supreme court to roll back all of that progress and more. you know what i say? i say gun laws save lives. gun laws save lives. one more time. gun laws save lives. -- nra's extreme approach the supreme court must reject this attempt to roll back in gun safety laws. thank you. [cheering] our next speaker is a friend to the movement, a friend who has been working on this issue for decades, is that right? just horowitz. [cheering] >> hello! horowitz, i'mh with the coalition to stop gun violence and we believe gun violence should be rare and abnormal. most people know me as a quiet gentleman, but not today. i will be loud. we are in the midst of a multi generational fight for our country. for years, the gun lobby said guns will keep us free, but that is not true. domestic violence, violence, suicide, mass shootings, police violence limits where we go, how we worshi

majority of these cases are having lifesaving measures that are consistent with the constitution with supreme courtht to live free from gun violence and cords matter. now the nra wants the supreme court to roll back all of that progress. you know what i say? i say gun laws and save lives. say it with me. gun laws to save lives. one more time. gun laws save lives. the nra extreme approach threatens our constitutional rights and our public safety and our lives. the supreme court must reject this attempt to roll back gun safety laws, thank you. (cheering) >> all right our next speaker is our friend of the movement, our friend that's been working on this issue for decades is, that nice? (laughs) josh horowitz. >> hello! my name is josh horowitz, i'm with the coalition top gun violence and we believe gun buyers should be abnormal. most people know me as a quiet gentlemen but not today. i will be loud. (cheering) we are in the midst of a generational fight for our country. for years, the gun lobby said guns will keep us domesti that is not true. community violence, domestic violence and suicide and polic

it is generally understood that after you go through senate to be confirmed in supreme court court, you never have to answered questions again that you don't want to. [laughter]. is that you get to ask the questions. but just as course, we appreciate your making in the section for the cvs and interview. [laughter]. >> i promise i will do my best to be a better experience and the judiciary committee. this lobar i know. [applause]. if you see a he of his book, you know that he had two collaborators. his former clerks, jane and david and we are pleased to have david in the audience with us tonight. david where are you. [applause]. >> and are honored that david joined by his grandmother, is very special to us, vera has been a docent at the reagan library for more than one years. [applause]. i should see you never estimate the power and influence of our doses can they can bring supreme court justice to the supreme library. when david and dara not just a sports on the link ronald reagan, in 1993, and a4, served as a clerk to supreme court justice anthony kennedy was president reagan's third a

o clickbait, aren't but the truth is, that the supreme court, like most courts in america, is a very collegial, warm and wonderful place to come to work. it is a tiny little place, only a couple hundred people work there. maybe a few hundred, i don't know. you get to know people. your kids trick-or-treat in the office. we flip hamburgers at the cookout. right? we even let the law clerks make fun of us in a skit at the end of the year. [laughter] justice gorsuch: and boy, do they. [laughter] justice gorsuch: that is a whole other story. do we disagree? yes. you have given us the 70 hardest cases in america. of course we are going to disagree sometimes. but we do it civilly when we do. we do it collegially. and we have fun doing it. sing "happy birthday" to one -- we sing "happy birthday" to one another, chorally and enthusiastically. we sing together at the holidays. we eat lunch together. an awful lot. every day we have conference or argument, lunch is available. unchroom.ces' l and then it is bring your own. we work for the government. [laughter] justice gorsuch: justice breyer, we

one of the docket cases that daca cases that will be argued at supreme court this term.f president obama did have the power under the immigration statutes to provide temporary status and work authorization to people brought here illegally as children, which policy i support by the way, but if he had that power already, that immigration law is too broad and unconstitutional. cato is filing a brief on monday on behalf of supporters of daca type policies, supporting it as a matter of policy but not as law. because the executive power simply is not so broad. these issues crop up. sometimes it is technical. if the supreme court makes waves, it will probably be on a technical thing like gandhi with -- gundy with sex offenders. werkheiser with veterans benefits -- or kaiser with veterans benefits. these issues are all around us. saagar: thank you for participating. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] saagar: tha

supreme court for more than 30 years. she's a regular contributor to the supreme court in ... to the news hour and she has written for publications such as though, ms. magazine and the roberts court. make sure anything that makes noise like cell phones or switched off and now please join me in welcoming our guests this evening. thank you. [applause] good evening. it's wonderful to be back with all of you tonight and especially wonderful to be here with my friends, my colleague, supreme court watcher as i am to talk about jones terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states john roberts junior. i'm going to start tonight by giving all of us a sense of john roberts the man before we talk about john roberts the justice on the supreme court. so, i want to start with a letter that you had reprinted in your book and this is a letter john roberts roa wrote when he s 13-years-old to the head of an all male catholic high school he wanted to attend. it was started the main reason i would like to attend is to get a better education. i've always wanted to stay ahead of the

they join three other justices on the supreme court who all consider themselves constitutionalists.heythat means is that believe the constitution, the structure at least of the constitution, should be preserved at all costs. so i think as we approach the next couple of years, when cases will start come to the court where the issue of nondelegation can be considered by the justices, we have a good shot here that the nondelegation doctrine will be restored. what does that do? if a law isngress, declared invalid because it is delegating authority to the executive branch, it forces congress to go back and reconsider that law, and make the big decisions in that law itself. that is what this book is about. ilya, opening remarks and then we will get to questions. i want to talk about two cases from this past term of the supreme court that show both sides of the same coin, and the pushback against the administrative state. i want to thank the steamboat institute, jennifer schubert- akin and the staff here. this is a great organization and i'm delighted to have the first opportunity to speak

and went to the supreme court. -- it went to the supreme court. this case is important because of the impact a decision would mean either way. if you tear down and say this is unconstitutional, this piece -- peace cross up for almost 100 years, only two miles away from this is arlington national cemetery. you would have to go into arlington and take down the law freestanding crosses in arlington. in fact, you would have to go in pretty much every community of every state of our country where there are religious symbols, stars of david, crosses throughout the landscapes. there would be a religious cleansing that i think most americans could not conceive of. so we argued at the supreme court that there is no way that this is a violation of the establishment clause. in fact, we argued there is a case that we shouldn't even be here. the only reason we are here is not because of what the constitution says, but because of the 50-year-old lemon case, we think aptly named, then has -- that has been applied to attack all kinds of religious symbols, religio

it seems supreme court justice recount her life and time on the high court. the federal smalley hemingway and judicial crisis examine the confirmation supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. and legal analysts and supreme court biographer joan bis cubic profiles chief justice brought john roberts. check your program guide for more information. now, first up tonight supreme court justice kneeled gorgeous reflects on his career and offers his thoughts on judiciary and the u.s. constitution. >> plays and gentlemen please welcome supreme court justice kneeled gorgeous and. ryan. [applause] >> good evening everyone, my name is john and i have the honor of being the executive director of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute. thank you all for coming this evening. if you would, and honor of our men and women in uniform who protect our freedoms around the world, please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisi

we were the ones that had this case in the supreme court. in the district court, we won. they said this is not a violation of the establishment clause. the establishment clause is there to not have a national church established, to not be forced to contribute to it. the idea that a veterans memorial has to be torn down because it is in the shape of a cross is something our founders would find bizarre, i think. so we made those arguments and we won in district court. >> in the court of appeals, the three-judge panel ruled 3-1 this was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. one of the statements in the oral argument by one of the judges was, why don't we just cut the arms off the cross? that way it will not offend anybody. we do at that point we might be in trouble that case. the 2-1 decision was against us and the ruling was this was going to have to be moved or destroyed. it was moved it would have been destroyed. it is not a shape that can be removed. so it went to the supreme court. this case is important because of the impact a decision would mean either way.

>> all the lower court orders are now stayed until the supreme court decides the case. es don't get the information and district attorney vance doesn't get the information until the court rules on the merits of the case now. >> neil: the only thing i can think of of similar but potential magnitude was the supreme court taking up the issue of richard nixon and all the tapes and releasing them. that was a 9-0 vote that demand of the released them. do you see a vote that would be that decisive one way or the other? >> i don't necessarily think so in this case because both of the opinions below were split opinions on the three-judge panel and then on the d.c. circuit. in the other case there was a petition for rehearing's and multiple judges dissented. that was not the case in lenox in case. i think there is more of a potential for a split. >> neil: back to impeachment. that is what happens now. it looks like a foregone conclusion once it is clear is rules the others and up-and-down vote in the house. along party lines largely the president will be impeached in the house and

banks gone straight away without going 1st to the high court may not be appropriate since the supreme court would like to get the impressions of the high court 1st and so the bodies have been sent back to the high court and it is kept in the high court today at 234 hearing in terms of the citizenship amendment bill this is what is the central pivotal antagonistic piece of legislation that is upsetting indians across the country what's your legal opinion about whether this violates the. the constitution and the essence of the constitution well it dearly violates article 40 no fog constitution which speaks of equality. which is equality for all people irrespective of the religion that they profess now what's happened is that constitutional amendment act leaves out $500000.00 muslims. and allows regularization roughly 3 times that number of hindus and other communities so it is discrimination on the basis of religion non muslims come in you can be regularized in india as citizens and. muslims. similarly situated you will be probably put in detention centers and incarcerated where does the case

court,th is, the supreme like most courts, is a wonderful place to come to work.t is a tiny place. only a couple hundred people work there. maybe a few hundred now. you get to know people. your kids trick-or-treat in the office. we flip hamburgers at the cookout. people make fun of us at the end of year. they do. [laughter] that is a whole other story. do we disagree? yes. you get the 70 hardest cases in america. of course we are going to disagree. but we do it civilly when we do. we do it collegially. we have fun doing it. we sang happy birthday to one another. poorly. [laughter] but enthusiastically. we sing together at the holidays. we eat lunch together. an awful lot. every day we have conference or argument, lunch is available in the lunchroom. you have to bring your own. we work for the government. [laughter] justice breyer, we don't talk shop. breyer's grandchildren there are practical jokes. one day, we are all lined up in our robes as we go out to the courtroom. we shake hands every time we gather. 36 hand shakes, no matter how tensee and what is going on

supreme court.'s bring in former discipline attorney general harry litman and former federal prosecutor robert ray. the headline the supreme court is about to tell us how willing it is to protect donald trump. a decision for trump could give the president broad new immunities from oversight that extend far beyond this one case. and: robert, i will start with you, the lower courts have not been with the president. he is hoping all of this will head to the supreme court and hand him a decision in the middle of a presidential election year that will block his records. how do you think the justices will tackle this? >> it will be a significant decision and probably the most significant decision on presidential power since jones versus clinton in connection with the matters that led to bill clinton's impeachment. it raises issues involving the president's tax returns and other financial documents. there are two different subpoenas and the 3rd case involves the district attorney in manhattan using a grand

it went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled in favor of the fdc. you will see challenges to the anti-licensing boards, particularly the ones comprised of private actors. i am not an antitrust lawyer, but it could end up being helpful. allen: we have time for one last question. >> i was wondering if you ever consider joining a consumer group. were in that -- you are interfering with having my right to have my hair braided by whom i want. have you ever considered joining a group like that? justin: we have. there have been quite a few of our cases where one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer, and that is not just in such -- that is not just true for licensing cases, it is true for economic liberty and free speech cases where the person who wants to buy the service or the person who wants to hear the speech, they are being harmed, too. i really think adding them as plaintiffs is helpful to really show the court how ridiculous the government logic is. the government loves to get on its high horse about how they are protecting the public, but

for the supreme court. ginsburg see justice in the questions that she asked, you could see that she had a picture in her head of what this was like and what it would feel like if you are that 13-year-old girl, but she was really the only one. some of the men on the court were not having their finest hour. they were sort of joking and just sort of not appreciating what this would have seemed like to a 13-year-old girl. there was a lot of commentary on it at the time, all deserved, i think. but then they went back into the conference room, and i don't know what happened there, and they came out, and justice ginsburg's view which that it searchunconstitutional prevailed by an extremely lopsided vote. so in the end, she was able to convince people that this was a serious matter, even if they were kind of ha ha-ing on the bench. findsaid before, you can people of all different kinds of views who were women, who were african-american, who were hispanic. i think the more important reason to have diversity on the b

at the harvard law for five years planted comments that kagan brings a fresh perspective to the supreme court. based on her prowess, technology and pop culture. (laughs) i would add, that she also brings to the court a wisdom and i love for the law and the justice it could yield. an awareness of the people and the world that it touches. joining justice kagan onstage is the director of modern white center, provost center subset malveaux. (applause). professor is a nationally recognized expert and commentator an silver class action litigation. she joined the university of colorado just over a year ago from the university and since then, her commitment to cutting edge scholarships, innovating teaching public service contributed to the life of law school. after a discussion with justice kagan, malveaux will take a few questions for the justice that have been submitted by the law students in advance. i've been asked to addressed a view household members before i welcome justice kagan and professor malveaux to the stage. first, let's make sure that your cellphones are turned off or on silent. i fee

even if the state does not have anything different, state supreme courts are the courts of last resort for their state constitutions. even when the language is identical, it is a prerogative to say we interpret our constitutional language differently. they can never go below the federal floor set by the u.s. constitution for protection of individual liberty, but they can go above it. so that happens. it doesn't mean we are always going to win. here in alabama, we lost the case. alabama supreme court. a teeth whitening license. we argued the precedent was different than the federal president. unfortunately, theal lamb supreme court disagreed and we lost. overall, we tend to win these cases more often then we lose. we tend to win under the federal rational basis test. may someday we will win one in alabama as well. those are the first two types of challenges that we bring. sometimes, there is reason to think a state constitution will provide any more protection in the federal constitution. other times, it is clear there will not be any way we can get the case into the first amendment or

the supreme court wrote it things the lower court to make a decision in 60 days.shannon: could conservative's big election blowout be a harbinger of things to come in the us? we will look at what it means for the 2020 election next. or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. >> ♪ >> shannon: conservative in the shannon: conservatives in the uk dramatically flipping labor party strongholds across the nation. in london this was met by protests and clashes with police. leland report on the message this election is sending american voters. >> reporter: angry protesters took to london street upset with the british election results but they are a vocal minority. voters in northern england and wales g

b supreme court chief justice that is the highest court and the country he said that he would get involved getting emergency rule and that then but of 2007 it was that sort of the event but primarily because he stole it from a hostile. and islamist extremist as he put it out like that that they put the country and they've gained and therefore an effective kate kate the implication of the emergency rule which of course why didn't violation of the budgets on the constitution he fact that judges of the country high called and then brought in. the provisional constitutional order also known that the sole p.t.o. sorry still engaged the challenges he was facing he did not last long. from the political leadership and this particular could be that member who was initiated by now why should he. have been convicted what 7 game time it's called the art of the country on health. how do you think this news will be received today in pakistan i'm wondering also a sidelong how is the vastness are viewed these days. but as far as i can make very clear good people. graduated. controversial need. to have don

if the supreme court lets that louisiana t.r.a.p. w stand, the one that's basically identical to the t.r.a.p. law the court threw out in 2016, the one that closed all those clinics in texas, if the new conservative majority in the supreme court lets the louisiana law stand, here are the places where that kind of law would likely shut down the last clinic in the state. that's a reality we could be living next year. again, the court is set to hear the louisiana case next year and rule by june. and that's what julie burkhardt is planning for right now. the mission of the foundation that julie created in dr. tiller's honor in the clinic is trust women. that's something dr. tiller used to always say. it's how he became an abortion provider himself. the mission of trust women which hangs all the walls in both clinics is, quote, trust women opens clinics that provide abortion care in underserved communities so that all women can make their own decision about their health care. there are more underserved communities julie burkhardt has her ey

the case is set to be decided by the supreme court in june. e expectation is that this newly constituted court will change course on that trap law. the expectation is that they're going to say that trap law is okay now, even if the result is the immediate wholesale shut down of clinics. so when julie burkhart says she feels like there is opposition coming at her all the time, this is part of what she means. first anti-abortion threats and terrorism and violence have made her city an unsafe place for local doctors to practice abortion. so her workaround is flying doctors in from out of state. but now the new conservative majority on the supreme court looks poised to use that very fact that she can't get local doctors at her clinics as a reason to shut her down, to end abortion in wichita again. more ahead tonight in this special report. stay with us. stay with us let's be honest, every insurance company says they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to beli

also here raman is outside the supreme court in new delhi hi there so so the supreme court have decided that they're not going to deal with looking at this further quite yet that's right julie basically the supreme court which is behind me right now was listening to petitions from the state of asylum in the northeast of the country they too heard wanted the supreme court the freeman bench chaired by the chief justice of india. day to understand that they were not happy with the legislation that was passed in parliament but what the supreme court has done it's very much procedure the government can pass as many laws as it wants but procedurally what happens next is that the government have to frame a set of rules that's the legal terminology once those rules are actually written only then can the supreme court assess whether the rules themselves are within the parameters of the constitution and within the spirit of the constitution so what the supreme court here in india has said to the government is that we want your set of rules as you see them regarding the citizenship amendment act t

if the supreme court lets that louisiana t.r.a.p. he one that's basically identical to the t.r.a.p. law the court threw out in 2016, the one that closed all those clinics in texas, if the new conservative majority in the supreme court lets the louisiana law stand, here are the places where that kind of law would likely shut down the last clinic in the state. that's a reality we could be living next year. again, the court is set to hear the louisiana case next year and rule by june. and that's what julie burkhardt is planning for right now. the mission of the foundation that julie created in dr. tiller's honor in the clinic is trust women. that's something dr. tiller used to always say. it's how he became an abortion provider himself. the mission of trust women which hangs all the walls in both clinics is, quote, trust women opens clinics that provide abortion care in underserved communities so that all women can make their own decision about their health care. there are more underserved communities julie the anti-abor activists, but s

we have been very involved in the supreme court case, organized a coalition of advocates and academics and briefsto submit various to the court. we think it would be a travesty against the will of the people and the public safety interest of all americans were the court to use this case as an opportunity to expand gun rights under the second amendment and potentially endanger our ability to pass gun laws that are specifically enumerated to be allowed. so, we are watching very closely. are on our facts side both procedurally and in terms of the jury, but we will see how it goes. we are going to be gathering thousands of advocates on december 2, the day of the hearing. all of washington, d.c. and certainly the country is going to see exactly how passionate the defenders of gun reform are. >> you have described this as the arcane law and the issue moot in new york. obviously, this is no longer in the court of public opinion, it's in the supreme court. that thisned are you threatens to undercut limits on public carrying in some states? >> well, i think that would be the threat. obviously,

supreme court justice elena kagan recently told a law school audience that the supreme court is not partisan, despite the current political climate. johnelivered the annual paul stevens lecture at the university of colorado loss goal -- university colorado law school in boulder and answered student questions. the john paul stevens lecture is named for another supreme court justice. justice stevens regrettably passed away just a few months ago and this lecture series is a tribute to his exemplary and courageous service on the bench and stature at as one of the gems of american justice. tobring distinguished jurors contribute to the life of our community. we are fortunate to have welcomed and free vs years several outstanding dodges and including a number of u.s. prima court justices who have enriched our community with. provoking -- we are fortunate to have welcomed several outstanding judges including a number of u.s. approval for justice who have enriched our community with thought-provoking speeches. valueeavors to guard the and architecture of liberty, equality, and solidarity found in th

she is the chief washington correspondent for national law journal and covered the us supreme court for 130 years and is a regular contributor to the newshour and she has written for publications like vogue, ms. magazine and the new york times and is the author of the roberts court, and hours before we begin i would like to make sure anything that makes noise like a cell phone is shut off. thank you for welcome at our guests this evening, thank you. [applause] >> it is wonderful to be back with all of you tonight and wonderful to be here with my friend, my colleague, my supreme court watcher as i am to talk about joan's terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states, john roberts junior. i want to start by giving all of us a sense of john roberts the man before we talk about john roberts for justice on the supreme court. i want to start with a letter you reprinted in the book. this is a letter john roberts wrote when he was 13 years old to the head of an all-male catholic high school if he wanted to attend. it is a short letter. dear mister moore. the main reason i would

the nixon justice department filed an emergency appeal to the supreme court and skipped over the courtf appeals and supreme court of the u.s. within two months, april to july 15, they say nixon, you have to turn over the tapes. unanimous decision, three of those justices appointed by none other than president nixon. that is the rule of law at the best. if there's anything i've tried to say in the book, it's this. the idea is it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor or republican or democrat, man or woman, african american or white, whatever. you should get the same basic standard. the book i ask, i say, this is how i teach from day one. if you have corporation, pretend the parties are reversed and think about it from the other side. so with this, i think any impeachment, i thought this was true with clinton as well, you think about if the shoe were on the other foot, if the president was obama and did all of this, how would you feel? if he tried to cheat on his reelection campaign by going and getting information from another government, and now i think the question has to be asked. wi

think this coming supreme court term is going to be one of the most interesting supreme court -- terms history so stay tuned. thank you guys all so much. [applause] >> copies of words book are available for signing. please help the staff by folding up your chairs. thank you. i started picking it up in my interviews even before i chose justice roberts as a subject that emerged in the research i was doing with justice sotomayor and the more approved the more i found allison -- elements frankly why he sets himself above the others as you read in that letter and i didn't know how much to make of it so i mention it at little points in the book is that i end up saying is it doesn't really affect the law in the end. it i'd affect how they navigate changes in who picks up the phone to work on a compromise, who might feel like hacking off if the chief might not want it. in the end it's more human dynamic element than something that affects the law we all lived under. generally speaking there is a terrible morning after effect following the great society binge. the economy began to flail as it n