supreme court justice david suitor. and also jenae wilson, she's director of counsel for the naacp preview defense and council fund. she was the associate director of the ronald h. brown civil economic development at st. john's university of law. steven is a fellow of law and government at the american university washington college of law. he is co-author of a biography of justice brennan, a columnist and previously served as continue for "the wall street journal." please welcome our panel for today's discussion. let me tell you a bit the format, we have asked each of our panelists to provide briefings, something they're very good at on a variety of upcoming cases, in some cases by category, in others a little more free form. so when each panelist does that presentation, then we'll engage him or her in some discussion of the cases, then eventually we'll turn it to u you and we'll ask for your questions and comments. but first, let me begin with a general question about the state of the court. is the court currently eith

you asked me about the supreme court. i note that they are, at least at this point, certainly releasing audiotapes. i think that is a very good development. on the issue of cameras in the courtroom, i would want to know more about why some of the justices, who at one point seemed favorably disposed to cameras, have concerns. there may be something we do not know about that has to do with those concerns. maybe security concerns. and so while the court of appeals, nobody knows who we are and we can be covered and there is no sense of security concerns. it may be different at the supreme court. that may suggest why some of the justices have changed their views. it would be interesting for you to have there be a next round of your supreme court c-span book. >> we did not ask any of them that in that round. this book -- what is this on the cover? >> what is on the cover is a text of a statute, which i had to interpret. the question in the case was this. there was a bar on suits against the government involving the miscarriage

certainly the government's chief lawyer in the supreme court. and don, i think in many ways, you have a unique perspective, not just because you're the inspector general, i'm going to admit that i did a little bit of googling, you're almost the same age as the chief justice, you distinguish yourself in private practice as the head of jenner and box, so of course you've known the chief justice for many years, first as lawyers in private practice, and now of course with a perhaps somewhat different relationship as the solicit for general to his chief justice. so i would really like to get any thoughts you might have from having now argued in front of the supreme court, the rockets court, both as solicitor general in private practice and also having known the chief justice for many years before that. >> i would like to start off with a couple of observations, one being that, i guess i would say there are two ways in which the court, the roberts court does reflect something fundamental about the chief justice himself. and one is, i get to see this b

court, the cohead of the supreme court and a partner specializing in the supreme court and appellate litigation. as it happened, this occurred right around at the time of the transition and i think also it in the first year of the roberts court as well. and the supreme court have kind of grown up with the roberts court. so i would like to ask the two of you to react and offer any additional thought that you might have as well. and so i will start with you and then if you have any thoughts about this, this might be of interest. >> one thing that we see today actually has almost nothing to do with the chief justice himself but is equally significant with some of the developments that joe mentioned and that is the retirement of justice stevens in particular. and so what struck me as her mentioning that we have or knew just says. in someway we all must have five because justice ginsburg plays a role today that is very different than when she first came on the court and even when i was a law clerk and when i first started before the court. the justice demands was very much a leader on the

is not clear what will happen in that specific case on the supreme court level or if the supreme court will look at any of this that there's a lot happening in cases that resemble a little bit on the speech side kind of what hobby lobby was like on the free exercise side so is possible we could get at the very important type of first amendment case showing up in the next couple years on the supreme court side. >> to your questions if we want to get the microphones in play. i will give you a moment to do that. raise your hand if you have a question, give our floor director some help. someone on this side too. we will get to you in a minute. let me ask the question before we come to you about the court stating relevant. i remember the technology cases like the cellphone case and now we have a face book case of authority and the technology is not a focus. generally speaking how is the court doing in keeping up with changes that change the way we live and perhaps the way we decide cases? >> the case last year which was about this company that allows you to intercept every the air televisio

that florida supreme court is the worst supreme court in the united states and it's known as that. well, actually, that wasn't true because actually the florida supreme court has been for many years one of the leading supreme courts in the united states. then rick santorum comes up and says, "thank god kogan's not on that court now because god knows what would have happened." the happiest day of my life was when he lost for re-election and only served one term as senator the [laughter] i won't make any comment about what he's been doing since that particular period of time. but the most sensible conversation i had on radio was when i got a call from a radio station in colombia and they were going to do a program and i would be speaking in english and they'd be translating it for their audience in spanish and then i would answer it in english and they would translate my answer in spanish. do you know that that was one of the most sensible programs that i was on during that entire period of time? and i found out that the audience, who were colombians, not only knew more about our ele

we must not let this become part of the supreme law of the land. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i'd ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: you know, i became a practicing physician over 30 years ago. i delivered well in excess of 4,000 babies. and i feel like right now in my senate career and where the senate is that i'm like the father in the waiting room. i keep wondering when we're going to make any progress, when we're actually going to have the delivery of something positive for the country. and what we're seeing this week is really disappointing to me, because if you read just the headlines -- just the headlines -- in the last week, last four days, here's the headlines about congress. here's-to-do "politico." the lamest lame duck looms over congress. ducks will do nothing in the congr

supreme court. one thing we have here today, including myself, or persons who played veryy pivotal roles in this particular event, which as you all know hardly ever happens. , let me start off by telling you what my association with the bush-gore actually -- elections turned out to be. when they discovered that we were going to have a long and drawnout scenario as to who actually won this election, the news media as they usually do clapped their hands and said, "boy, we've got something going here for a long time." now all we have to do is get somebody on that supreme court who is willing to tell us how the court is going to rule. that's the florida supreme court. well, obviously they couldn't get that. the next thing was well, let's find somebody who is on the supreme court and maybe he or she can help us out. that's how they got to me and i appeared in about 75 to 80 interviews on tv and on the radio give them my opinions as to what i thought may happen next. and it might surprise you to know that

supreme court and appellate litigation.s it happens, they first asked the supreme court really around the time of the transition to justice roberts. they have really grown up with the roberts court primarily. i think i'll throw the floor open and ask the two of you to react to what has been said and offer additional thoughts you might have on the roberts court. i'll start with william. perhaps if you have thoughts about arguing in front of the roberts court in particular, that would be of interest. >> sure. i think one change that we see today actually has almost nothing to do with the chief justice himself. but it's equally significant to some of the developments that joan mentioned and that is the retirement of justice stevens in particular. what struck me was joan mentioning that we have four new justices. in some ways, we almost have five because justice ginsburg today plays a very different role than she did when she first came to the court. justice stevens was very much a leader on the court of justices who -- not alw

supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. you know, justice ginsburg is right, it is clear to most americans, which is why opponents of reform either change the subject or muddy the water, which i will get into in a minute. but the point must be made, the five conservative justices on the supreme court are not done. if left unchecked, the hammering will continue, the destruction will go on. chief justice roberts made a troubling statement in the mccutcheon decision. he said that preventing bribery is the only basis, the only justification for congress to pass campaign finance laws. what does this mean? it means more bad decisions from the court. it means the floodgates stay open, the money keeps pouring in. short of prohibiting out and out bribery, congress is powerless to act and the american people must step aside, billionaires will stay at the front of the line. all of this, folks, defies -- defies -- common sense. senator mccain said after mccutcheon -- quote -- "there will be scandals involving corrupt political official

four years before in which the supreme court had supreme court had let that provision stand.013, they struck it down. they struck it down on the notion that there's something called the equal footing doctrine against more than others. it basically is made. you can find it in the constitution and it's an interesting example of how when i was in moscow it was the conservatives who preached judicial strength of the idea that core shouldn't do very much to strike down legislation is unconstitutional. over the last 15 years we've seen a rule reversal and the conservatives flexing muscles and using the courts to strike down legislation in shelby county has example eight. a landmark statute passed 98 to zero by the senate and some mx 421 to three in the house preauthorized in 2006 by those numbers in at the supreme court struck it down. >> judicial activism is like gerrymandering. >> deal made a brief reference that we have to mention there's a good likelihood the supreme court will get some abortion cases one or more this term. they have not agreed to hear any cases yet. there are

>> they would ask the supreme court to resolve the conflict. >> it would have to be the supreme court? >> i think so. i think they would permit a state. >> should we permit a stay? i guess are going to get to this later. we agree with you that this other litigation that is going on, we want the supreme court -- supposing where wrong and somebody blows of a subway train -- does it make sense for us to say here are our views and wait for the d.c. circuit to speak. before actually making an order, an injunction? >> i think it would be relevant. we have not taken a position on that. >> that would be within our power to do? >>yes. >> i will now proceed to the constitution. our claim under the fourth amendment is quite straightforward. the government will collection of our bulk records intrudes on a resort location of privacy. this was decided in 1979 in a supreme court decision. >> let's suppose that we agree that quantity is quality here. that this program is different. isn't there still quite a bit to the government's argument that even in this context, there is not much of an expectatio

by word of -- supreme court. by way of disclosure i'm one of lawyers along with amazing team of folks across the country on the utah case. so i will stick to the public filings in this case and tell you what it is about. basically, you know, utah has amend amendment three to this constitution which does a few things t restricts marriage to only that between a man and a woman. it also said, if you had a same-sex marriage in some other state, that and you moved to utah, they won't recognize that. indeed it bans not just, bans all benefits and things like that for folks with same-sex marriages or civil unions. they say that is also, we're not going to give any such benefits. so the plaintiffs, three different couples, challenged that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and due process clause, saying essentially this is unconstitutional. it is a denial of equality. and, they won in the district court. and indeed, think there have been 31 or so cases across the country in the last tw

pentagon papers case, example -- >> then it went to the supreme court. >> then it went to the supreme court. it also came up through the d.c. circuit, parallel cases, "the washington post" and "the new york times." >> you have been chief judge for how long and what does that mean? >> i have been chief judge from most a year, september 1. the chief judge is responsible for the operations of the court. it is a seven-year term. we have 291 persons working in the second circuit, and that includes the judges, clerks, and the administrative people. we have a budget that ranges -- a local budget that ranges between $16.5 million and $19 million. plus there is money paid centrally by washington, d.c., the salaries of the judges and the clerks. that is another roughly $12.5 million. >> i do not want to put words in your mouth, but i would assume you are not primarily conservative? >> i would say to label is to ignore. >> will see why i want to know this guy, senator moynihan does not just appeal to people on the liberal side. i'm good to show you a clip of george will talking about him here. >

♪ >> we are pleased to be joined on the set by former justice of the supreme court sandra day o'connorthis is her fifth book. out of order. when did you discover you enjoyed writing? >> i have always liked to write. i figure i have a lot of things to write about. >> whether you doing at the festival today? you are not talking about your book. >> i note the guy who runs the library of congress in my brother has written a book so he said i had to bring my brother and i said i would. >> you are brother of al lin day. what is the book about? >> he had to ridges and north dakota. and the federal government had the responsibility but he did that for quite awhile >> host: let's talk about some of the stories that former chief justice john marshall and the madison did not like each other. >> isn't that amazing? >> it was amazing that they didn't. >> host: marbury vs. is madison case what did that case established? >> i don't know today we would say much of anything. >> host: butted establish the supreme court as the equal branch. >> it was treated as an equal branch with the other two and give

this is the fifth book with the history of the supreme court out of order. when did you discover you enjoyed writing? >> guest: nothing changed but there were lots of things to write about and tell about. >> host: what you doing at the book festival today? you are not talking about your book. >> guest: i know who is the head of the library of congress. so jim said i had to bring my brother and i said i would and we are here. >> host: and what is your brother spoke about? >> for a long time he had most of them in the country to ranches in north dakota. the federal government had the responsibility to pay something and he did that for quite awhile. >> host: some of the stories in here one of the first that you tell is the former chief justice and thomas jefferson were related id did not like each other. what was their relationship? >> that was amazing that they did not it and it was so difficult to manage. >> host: marbury vs. madison that helped to establish what? >> guest: to date not much of anything but. >> host: butted established with the supreme court.

circuit might have on the supreme court's docket. that's a big one. i'm looking at this general since most of those cases do tend to -- >> well what a difference it has made because we just saw most recently last week the d.c. circuit announced that it was going to rehear the -- another generation of the obama health care law case rather than have it go right up to the supreme court. it's made a big difference that president obama has gotten four appointees on during his first term, he got none on because of the stalling in the senate and all sorts of polarization that we're all aware of here in washington but he now has four new judges on that court and it's making a difference in these rehearings and it will make a difference down the road. in fact, i wonder -- if you think of what you had last year in the knoll canning case, certainly decided by two republican appointees. it doesn't always break that way, but i would think that maybe there aren't going to be as many appeals coming up, although that circuit, no what thor what it does, i think it's t

for the first time the supreme court was going to rule on that amendment. the chief justice was concerned. he wanted to get it right. to whom would he look? where would he go? to history, of course. so he consulted his old friend and neighbor in washington, d.c., george bancroft. george bancroft, the most distinguished american historian of the era. bancroft suggested that he should look to the works of thomas jefferson -- i was going to say alexander hamilton. [laughter] i am in the wrong state. thomas jefferson and james madison. and especially the history of the passage of the statute for establishing religious freedom. he followed that advice. and his decision in reynolds versus the united states fixed to the course the supreme court has followed ever since in its reliance on the virginia statute. the relationship between church and state is among the most enduring concerns of western civilization. but this is embraces the two subjects that my mother said i should never talk about in public -- religion and politics. [laughter] my mother was a wise woman

the current supreme court has been noted as among the most pro-corporate supreme courts in our history. in decision after decision, a narrow conservative majority of the court has placed the voices of corporations and special interests over the voices of the people. the court decided citizens united in 2010. corporations are people with free speech rights said the courts 5-4 majority. under this construct, corporations are people, this ruling -- citizens united -- granted special interests the right to use corporate treasuries to drown out the voices of the people without being subject to meaningful disclosure requirements. we've already seen the impact of this decision. according to the center for responsive politics, this election year, outside groups have spent triple the amount they had at the same time in 2010. and the election is still months away. the court thrust the wide gates even wider with the ruling in the mccutcheon case. this ruling struck down aggregate limits on contributions by individuals. so now billionaires could spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence t

the supreme court's job to the law. the branches of government, the judiciary, the e executive branch. the executive branch, the law.ident executes the puts them in the force and make sure people follow them. b hour was yize forced to act. he did not want to act. was not happy about the brown decision at all. in fact, the white house press refused to comment on the brown versus the board of decision. the only one that refused to the two that refused to comment about brown versus board. the president was not happy. went on, he realized there was a great deal of resistance. rebellion in some case. had to execute the law. so he did send in the military. it was very sad. was happy that that had to happen. he had to use the military on united states soil to enforce law. when what does that mean people organize the you think they're doing something right the courts k that are supposed to be -- the say so or whatever.ment the government itself sh does that u, what mean, the particular individual that say, oh, we won, but then

this is by far the closest the supreme court closest the supreme court is closest the supreme court hasever gotten to that evidentiary question. >> the court seems to be playing a can you top this game. the funeral protest case would've been a law professor's worst nightmare or hypothetical. you don't want the supreme court to be deciding free speech law on the horrible facts of this case. now this one, i mean what's next? >> next up and delicately in my notes and thank you for a terrific briefing by the way. welcome to the club. you our newest panelist your on the docket series. i have listed here, steve, other cases because we decided we couldn't put these into any type of category whether of the cases we are highlighting and steve graciously volunteered to be the go to guy for the grab bag. steve, you're up. >> thank you, john. the first one want to talk about neal talked about how same-sex marriage is the civil rights issue of this era for this generation. sadly, one of the cases i want to talk to is the civil rights era of about 40 years ago. it's a case involving pregnancy discrim

supreme court term.rsation about national security with the director of the non counter- -- national counterterrorism center. stays >>> now to a debate for the open seat in iowa's third congressional district, which covers the southwestern part of the state. democrat, staci appel, who served in the iowa state senate, is running against republican david young, former chief of staff to u.s. senator chuck grandsonley. the winner of the race replaces tom latham, who is retiring. this is courtesy of iowa public tv. [applause] >> welcome this is iowa's third congressional district, stretching from central iowa to the missouri border and the missouri river, too. that includes des moines, council bluffs, and creston, red oak, shen unanimous dough, and atlantic. republican tom latham is not seeking re-election so make it one of the 44 open seats in the u.s. house of representatives. democrats hoping to reclaim the seat are pinning the hopes on staci appel, form state senator, serving from 2006 to 2010. republican

it is the season of the supreme court preview.and this is the federalist society version and it is a very good one. this is also the season where you have two kinds of cases before the supreme court. they've granted perhaps 40 cases, some of them quite interesting and you will hear about them today mostly. also on on verizon there are some real blockbusters that could really transform american life including seven petitions the justices will continue at the first conference of the new term on september 29 concerning a question of the constitutional right to same-sex marriage and not far behind that, a challenge to another aspect of the affordable care act and perhaps also on the rise and, conceivably disturb affirmative action and abortion. so, you have two things going on at once as it is so often is so often the case with the court. we have today with us a very distinguished panel. i've never been to a panel that was not introduced as a very distinguished panel, but this one authentically set the mark. with us today teacher at g

all supreme court practitioner and journalists in the world are waiting to see whether the supreme court is going to wade into the area of same-sex marriage and has a number of cases coming up, as all you've will be aware, that present the question of whether there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and we may know at the end of the month if the supreme court is going to decide that issue. there are yet more challenges to the affordable care act winding their way up to the supreme court. it's uncertain if they will get to the court this term, including cases involving questions concerning the funding of the exchanges on which health insurance is now -- purchased as a result of the affordable care act and further issues as joan mentioned, concern thing an the applicability contraceptive mandate and the interplay between that and claimed religious liberties. there are cases involving race, cases involve eight firm action. the fisher versus university of texas case that maury worked on whet it was last before the supreme court, seems to be heading back in that direction. unclear

or at least those operating for the supreme military council.gives you a bit of pause in terms of think that how we're going to courtney kube effort going forward. again, let's be careful here. these groups are not like isis in the sense that they don't from what we've heard in interviews, and in the way to explain the ideology to us, they are not transnational and aspiration. but that syria that they would rule i think there's a huge difference between fat and the aspirations of -- between that and the aspirations of the moderate fighters. the beginning to suffer a bit in terms of their organization, and ability, leadership has taken a big strike results of that questions whether not they will hang together. the question for u.s. policymakers is what do you do with tens of thousands of more conservative salafi extremist, some who might be willing to bleed over to the isis the cat or stage, and then how do we understand the role they're going to play in an effort that we're going to fund going forward, given that their aspirations are probably q

i am adam liptak and i covered the supreme court for "the new york times." what we are going to do is set up maybe a dozen different cases mostly granted, couple on the horizon moving from panelist to panelists with maybe just a little bit of exchange between us. if someone has an insight and something to have been a brief discussion among ourselves and we will turn to your questions. we are going to start with oren. >> thank you adam and thanks to the federalist society for the imitation here that i'm going to run through free cases in five minutes so it's going to be really fast. just introducing three cases and of course we can come back to them later if you would like. one of the interesting cases this term gates versus the united states raising the question which i know is on everybody's mind which is are red grouper fish tangible objects under the sarbanes-oxley law? this is a case involving criminal statute that makes it a crime to knowingly destroy altar or mutilate any record document or tangible object. the question in the case is whether a tangibl

they would asked the supreme court to involve that. i think this spring court would likely permit a stay, pending its resolution of that conflict. it toake him i will turn our constitutional claim. >> would we permit a stay subject to resolution? supposing we agree completely with you. might we not come in order to avoid the sort of circumstances, we agree withay you, but there is other litigation going on. we want the supreme court to have a kick at the ball. we are very much in the wrong, and summary blows of a subway train. does it make sense for us to say, here are the rules, and this -- and then wait until the d.c. circuit speaks, and the supreme court has an opportunity makingk before actually an order of an injunction? >> i think it would be well authority tourt's take a position on that. >> that would be within our power to do. >> this intrudes upon a reasonable education of privacy. the government's primary expurgation of forces that this case was decided in 1979. that is something out the case. >> let's suppose that we agreed

and the supreme court said that that judge should have stepped aside. but what's troubling, even now, it doesn't change their rule as to when judges have to step aside from cases. so those rules -- with the flood of money in the elections. >> what a remarkable story, and thank you for being with us. al ish a. the councilor for. brennan center for justice. and we'll hear more on this story as we head to the elections. >> . >> u.s. home prices continue to rise, but the pace of the gains are slowing. the shiller index showed that home prices raised 5.6% in july, and that's compared to last year. that's a smaller increase of what we saw in june. prices are still rising but going up more slowly. when people tell you that they're going down, that's simply not true. the market is returning to a healthier and more stable position. coming up next, obamacare's 1 year anniversary, and i'll have a prognosis on it. n as obamacare for its biggest opponents. obamacare has suffered a lot of bruises on the way, and the roll out of went very badly. starting october 1st o

[applause] >> we are pleased to be joined by former justice of the supreme court sandra day o'connor this is her fifth book stories from the history of the supreme court out of order, justice o'connor when did you discover you enjoyed writing? >> nothing changed there were lots of things to write about and tell about. >> host: what are you doing at the book festival today? you are not talking about your book? >> i know the guy she was ahead of the library of congress and my brother has a new book so jim said i had to bring my brother. i said i was. that is why we are here. >> host: you are in a conversation with alan day what is his book about? >> for a long time he had most wild horses in the country and the two branches in north dakota the federal government had the responsibility he did that for a while. >> host: but seven of the stories in here one of the first you tell is former chuffed -- chief justice marshall was related and did not like each other? >> guest: isn't that amazing? >> host: what was their relationship? >> i know specifically but it is amazing they didn't like ea

these are both cases the supreme court has agreed to hear. furthermore, they are cases where my firm is filing the amicus briefs. in both cases, challenging the government action. the first case has to do with amtrak. the basic issue is this. in 2008, they passed a law instructing amtrak to promulgate new regulations involving standards for performance of trains on these tracks. the catch is that amtrak is basically a competitor with the other trains that will be regulated by these rules. the other trains are mostly freight. but they are competing for scarce time on the tracks. the freight rails were none too happy about suddenly being regulated by one of their competitors. after they promulgated the regulations, the freight rails said that the statute violates the nondelegation doctrine. when you hear the nondelegation doctrine, you might think of the so-called intelligible principle. this is a slight variation on that. the court decided a case called carter cole, that congress can't delegate rulemaking power to private entities. the challen

that's normally a number one thing that the supreme court is looking for is that they have this right there and they wasted no time in filing their petition instead of the normal 90 days, they turned around and nine days and then it could have almost been considered by this first conference but because the government was given a 30 day extension, it was considered maybe in october and possibly very early november by the courts. in the meantime, the government asked them to take this case so that the possibility that the court with a 74 majority, if they vote as many have predicted, kind of a long party lines and they will overturn the decision of the panel and the race this. the question is whether the court will even take this case given the fact that this is in question and i think that a lot of arguments as to why they would thus consider cases that are major in question when there is not a circuit split and it's also a good argument that even if there is a split at the time that the case is argued, there's a good chance that there will be some point down the road. these 30 some st

it is the season of the supreme court preview. this is the federalist society version of it and it's a very good one. this is also the season where you have two kinds of cases before the supreme court. they have granted perhaps 40 cases, some of them quite interesting. you'll hear about them today, mostly. also on the horizon are some real block esters that can really transform american life. theuding seven petitions justices will consider at their first conference of the new term of september 29 concerning the question of if there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. that, afar behind challenge to another aspect of the affordable care act. perhaps also on the horizon, conceivably this term, affirmative action and abortion. you have two things going on at once as is so often the case. we have a very distinguished panel today. i have never been to a panel that has not been introduced as a very distinguished panel but this one has that mark. inwarren kerr.wore he is quite possibly the leading expert on the fourth amendmen

he clerked for judge easterbrook and justice anthony kennedy at the supreme court. it is served at the department of justice during the bush administration and he has testified before congress numerous times, most recently before congressman goodlatte's hearing on the ability of the president to faithfully execute the laws. with that, i will turn it over to stewart. >> thank you, liz. i love the introductions. they have all of the benefits of a wake without the one detriment. [laughter] ago, an independent poll was conducted by university asking which of the 12 president since world war ii were the best and the worst. heritage will be glad to know, if it does not know already, the winner on the best side was president reagan, but by a large , held, 33% of the vote that president obama was the worst president since world war ii. one question immediately came to my mind, which is, and they really forgotten the jimmy carter administration? but the second question was this . this contempt about the obama administration, the product of a belief he has exceeded his powers

[laughter] the most consistent classical liberal supreme court justice. what is his great achievement? , he sort ofing understood the logic of freedom of contract in a way that holmes and others did not. the understood that it was a game proposition. if you maded that it impossible to have a voluntary contracts it would be in enormous impediment against the people of limited means to rise up. case.inion was in a to water rights, he was the only supreme court justice who understood the connection between a water right as atween a water rights probable matter and a government matter. why is this important? if you look at the way that water organizes, there are powerful rules indicate the limit that somebody can dam a border at the top to destroy. if you teach water rules, these are very accurately done. pitney understands and says that the federal government can't just decide that these rates do not exist. just as jackson wrote a case called willow river. not he says is that we do understand property rights, suggest because you lost something economically d

although gordon did believe he would be fully vindicated by the supreme court that was interesting. win he was convicted at the local court but to make the announcement. >> they have all but refused to listen to the supreme court and i believe it was his hope to understand the constitutional issues. but he and barnett developed a systematic argument of the position of which was the application. and to be biracial myself i may apply a clause for those that were half of japanese ancestry, even down to 1/8 1/8, some how that fits you removed and to into when these camps. it was profoundly unconstitutional and gordon believed the supreme court justices would agree with him about that. >> host: did they? >> guest: at some of the did not. but because there was a relationship between the conviction and the time he - - sheet asked that his sentences in opposition and removal has lessened the little bit. >> they decided only to take the curfew portion of the case. they avoided engaging the constitutional finality of mass removal. i have heard attorneys say that this was very deliberate. seve

john rutledge, the supreme court's second supreme court justice, called coke's is to choose the foundations of our law. jefferson wrote to madison that there was never profound or learning english liberties. as an aside, when the young jefferson was actually studying coke in 1762, he wrote, "i wish the devil had old coke, because am sure i was never so tired of an old scoundrel in my life." in any case, with coke came a reverence for his conception of magna carta. and american settlers incorporated elements of the great charter into colonial law. when they revolted against george iii, they did not view their causes a fight for novel freedoms. but rather, one to preserve liberties they traced to magna carta. now, here with within boston's city limits, the colonialists invoked magna carta's guarantees in response to george iii's injustices. the massachusetts assembly declared the stamp act illegally because it was against magna carta and the natural rights of englishmen, and therefore, according to lord coke, null and void. john adams asserted that britain's restrictions on the jurisdiction o

you asked me about the supreme court. i know that they are at least at this point certainly releasing audiotapes. i think that is a very good development. on the issue of cameras in the courtroom, i would want to know more about why some of the justices, who at one point seemed favorably disposed to cameras, have concerns, because there may be something that we do not know about that has to do with those concerns, maybe security concerns, and so while at the court of appeals, nobody knows who we are, and we could be covered, and there is no sense of security concerns, and maybe different at the supreme court that may suggest why some have changedes their views, and it would be interesting. the next time c-span does that, you could ask them. >> we did not ask them during that round. this book, what is on the cover? >> what is on the cover is a text of the statute, which i had and the question in the case was this. bar on suits against involving the miscarriage or loss or negligence of transmission of materials in connectio

. >> jon: the supreme court is defining it as true quid-- corruption is only quid pro quo quo.is money if you promise me you will do this. >> yeah, the supreme court, i think, is just so out of touch with reality. it doesn't make any sense. (applause) >> jon: well, unfortunately there seems to be no support for that sentiment. (laughter) >> it doesn't make any sense. that's part of what the book is about. not only does not make sense now, but you know, throughout american history for the first 200 years when you said corruption, people thought, including the supreme court, oh, you mean all the kinds of ways in which money can basically tempt public, you know, politicians away from serving the public. and it's not just in bribe, it's including in legal ways. and the supreme court now says it is only-- basically i write you a contract saying john, will you please mention, you know, crest toothpaste, or whatever, in this or that. >> jon: i would never-- although it does really polish teeth. so why this change? because you sort of chart it from ben franklin's snuff box that he rece